|
Gaea IV One of the major complaints made by activists of all persuasions is that, in general, the public does not seem to be concerned about the things that the activists themselves are so obsessed about. The 'sheeple' - as the activists often term the ordinary people - do not seem to care about what is going on around them. And, worse, they appear simply to do as they are told. The sheeple do not seem to object very strongly to high rates of taxes. It does not seem to perturb them that their lives are increasingly ruled and mismanaged by others. They do not seem to make too much fuss about the fact that their national borders are not being strongly policed. And, as far as the men's movement is concerned, it seems incredibly strange that most men seem unperturbed about the way in which they have been gradually emasculated, demonised and discriminated against in so many areas of their lives. The cries of activists ... seem mostly to fall on deaf ears. The cries of activists designed to rouse millions of people into supporting 'their cause' seem mostly to fall on deaf ears. Why? 1. Well, the answer to this question might best be understood by viewing the whole of society as just one biological organism. Yes indeed. And in much the same way that there are very few elements within highly-complex biological organisms that govern the overall directions that they will take - and these few elements are mostly found in their 'brains' - so it is that societies themselves might be unable to be viable unless they are guided by a similar principle. Think about it. If all the people in a society decided not to be 'sheeple' any longer, then how could a society - a single organism - even exist!? The individual people would tear it apart - as they all fought each other to do their own thing. Indeed, an inherent property of large multi-cellular organisms and large multi-peopled enterprises (such as societies) seems to be that very few elements within them take the 'big' decisions. Thus, there is no point in my missus complaining to my pancreatic cells about my failure to remember to buy the newspaper yesterday evening. And cussing at my buttocks will not get the lawn mowed any sooner. By and large, the only way to influence what I do is to influence the cells of my brain. And the same sort of thing is true for men's activists who want to influence their societies. They would achieve far more by trying to influence the 'brain' cells of those societies than the cells of their societies' buttocks - i.e. the 'sheeple'. Nevertheless, there are strong feedback mechanisms from the lower levels of organisms to the higher levels. The flow is not exclusively from the top downwards. And so, for example, if one was to place a lighted match underneath my backside, the cells contained therein would very quickly send a very strong message to my brain cells which would quickly tell me to move my backside. And they would almost certainly get their way. After all, my backside needs protection from lit matches. And in societies one can similarly spur the lower levels - the 'sheeple' - into action by causing them alarm; e.g. by convincing the sheeple that unless they take action something dreadful will happen. there appear to be two ways in which activists can exert influence. Generally speaking, therefore, there are two ways in which activists can exert influence. a. They can attempt to influence the 'brains' of their societies. b. They can set out to alarm the sheeple in their societies. But - and this is most important - it is very difficult indeed to persuade the sheeple to take up any particular cause. Indeed, without 'alarming' them in some way, the sheeple (like the cells in my buttocks) will remain uninterested. This appears to be an inherent part of the nature of organisms and societies. In other words, this is not something that activists can change to their benefit, and, as such, there is not much point in them forever complaining about it. Indeed, if the sheeple ever stopped being sheeple, then the activists would lose their influence! Catch 22! Yes, of course, activists can certainly unite the people by causing them alarm (perhaps against a common enemy) but without maintaining this state of alarm most of the people would simply revert to being sheeple. And if the people did not do this then their societies would break down as they all argued with each other over just about everything. Without a common enemy - a common point of view - which is the same as most people being sheeple - the societies would, presumably, split into separate organisms, i.e. they would break down. Yes. Very good Angry Harry. But what is your point? Well, the point is this. If societies are seen as organisms, and if one wants to influence them without creating undue alarm, then the question arises as to where are their 'brains'? Within a society, where are the 'brain' cells that do most of the thinking and, hence, most of the influencing? It is the media that mostly influence people and, hence, their societies. Well, when it comes to western societies, the answer is to be found in the media. It is the media that mostly influence people and, hence, their societies. For example, even if President Bush was to talk all day long, I would not hear a single word that he said. It is through the media alone that I get all my news about President Bush. There is no other way for me to hear President Bush. And it is the media that will or will not air his words. It is the media that will choose which of President Bush's words I will hear, and which pictures I will see. It is the media that will censor, filter, emphasise, endorse and criticise his words. And it is the media that will colour my perception of the man himself. it is the media that are the brain cells of western societies. In very many ways, therefore, it is the media that are the brain cells of western societies. And it is the media, therefore, that the men's movement needs to influence. For example, Politician X, Judge Y and Activist Z are of virtually no significance to anybody - no matter how brilliant and wise they are - unless they influence the media. 2. Thanks to the new technologies, the mainstream media are losing their influence as an increasing number of informational outlets are forming and competing against them. And these technologies are not only providing further informational outlets to the public - the sheeple - they are also providing men's activists with the means to influence those who are connected with the dissemination of information through the mainstream media. Indeed, activists of every persuasion (including those connected with the major political parties) together with journalists who work in the mainstream media are positively crawling all over the internet. And it is through the internet, therefore, that men's activists can reach out to influence those in the media who have influence on the sheeple. And it is quite clear that online men's activists are already influencing the mainstream media - the 'brains' of their societies. This is probably not very obvious to many men's activists because they are often not fully aware of just how enormous are the forces that are pitted against those who wish to express the male point of view. Journalists and organisations are very strongly intimidated by histrionic and vindictive women Journalists and organisations are very strongly intimidated by histrionic and vindictive women whenever they put forward even the mildest of views that do not conform with the feminist agenda. And companies and advertisers are lobbied intensely until they pull the plug on those who dare to step over the mark. One can hardly exaggerate the extent of the collective malevolence of these hysterical women. When wimmin's groups disapprove of something they quickly launch into vicious attacks on those deemed responsible by threatening to accuse them publicly of harming any 'vulnerable' women who might be 'out there'. And they are accused of being 'supporters of abuse'. Needless to say, most people and most organisations are desperate to avoid such confrontations and, therefore, they very quickly back away from doing anything that might provoke such attacks. As a consequence, feminists, women's victim groups and their gullible followers continue to block successfully the publication of articles and books. They continue to block TV adverts, programs, films, academic research and government programs. And they continue successfully to intimidate most organisations from doing anything at all that might interfere with their nasty agenda. Further, many of these groups are also extremely well resourced - mostly with tax dollars. There are now, literally, millions of people in the west whose jobs are directly related to promoting the feminist agenda in one way or another (e.g. most academics) and/or whose jobs depend upon its promotion (e.g. various anti-male government programs). the public has been brainwashed for three decades with the lies of the feminist movement And when one adds to all this the fact that the public has been brainwashed for three decades with the lies of the feminist movement and that people can easily have their entire futures blighted for even daring to speak out against the feminists, it is clear that the task for the men's movement is positively huge, and that its enemies are extremely strong. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the men's movement appears to be making such slow progress. And, furthermore, the men's movement has also had to compete recently for attention with 9/11 and two years of war! But, despite all the odds, it really is making significant progress. And the main route to this progress has been via the internet. It is through the internet that those who have influence are finally being influenced by those who are standing up for men's rights. And so when, for example, one hears men's activists bemoaning the fact that the men's movement is mostly "internet-based", it is clear that they have not quite got a grip on the situation. It is the growing brain in cyberspace that is the major source of the progress that is being made It is the growing brain in cyberspace that is the major source of the progress that is being made outside of cyberspace. Nothing else - and no other men's group - comes even close to achieving what the collective activism of those in cyberspace are achieving. Even those heroes whose activism is largely outside of cyberspace (and there are now quite a few of them; e.g. Fathers For Justice) are supported very strongly by the activists who operate mostly within cyberspace. Indeed, the internet is providing men's activists with one of the most powerful tools imaginable when it comes to furthering their cause and seeking to empower themselves. There has been nothing like it throughout history. And so to complain about the fact that the men's movement is mostly making use of the internet is about as daft as complaining about the fact that soldiers in the past mostly carried guns and were usually part of an army. men's activists do not operate exclusively inside cyberspace. Furthermore, men's activists do not operate exclusively inside cyberspace. They also have a real existence - and a real influence - in the outside world. But, for the reasons mentioned above, it is extremely difficult for them to make much public headway because the forces that oppose them are truly gargantuan. Nevertheless, those who function as cells in the 'brains' of western society - e.g. their work appears in the media - and who, therefore, carry a good deal of influence, are to be found roaming the internet in very large numbers. And this, even on its own, is a good enough reason for men's activists to direct most of their activism through the internet. 3. Millions of years ago multi-cellular organisms started to form. In the main, this did not happen through a process in which a few cells got together and successfully enslaved a whole host of other cells in order to cater for their own needs. What seems to have happened is that cells communed with each other in various ways that somehow enhanced their own survival. And, eventually, through a process of differentiation, groups of cells began to take on different functions. As such, the evolution of complex organisms was more of a bottom-up process than a top-down process. And the same is likely to be true for the organism that is the men's movement. It will emerge through the combined interactions and information exchanges that take place between a growing number of activists. This is not to say that no great leader(s) or organisation(s) are going to appear that will finally dominate the movement, but any processes that give rise to such things are likely to be fairly gradual, and to emanate directly from the activities of thousands of lesser beings who are, pretty much, simply attending to their own needs. Putting this another way: The increasing activities of an increasing number of men's activists are likely to generate a structure that will, eventually, be quite recognisable as an organism that is the 'men's movement'. And this will happen quite unconsciously. As such, perhaps the only really important message for men's activists to take on board is simply this one. Stay active! 4. The men's movement is growing all the time. And much of this is due to the collective activism of men-who-sit-at-screens. 'Men-who-sit-at-screens' - writers, computer folk, scientists, the intelligence and security services etc - are, in many ways, a certain breed of men - with, loosely speaking, more brain, less muscle, more introvert, less extravert etc. And many of us grow to be this way as we get older! it is men-who-sit-at-screens who will knit together the men's movement. And it is men-who-sit-at-screens who will knit together the men's movement. There will be men's activists who will dash hither and thither around cyberspace harassing the enemy and gathering up information to feed to webmasters and authors. There will be webmasters and authors sifting, analysing and re-arranging information to create feeds and ideas to push into the more mainstream media. There will be mainstream media activists who repackage the information for a much wider audience. There will be computer folk who will help the men's movement to grow inside cyberspace. And there will also be men-who-sit-at-screens in many other walks of life who will do their bit to further the men's movement and its aims. For example, there are, apparently, some 50,000 police officers and security agents in the USA whose work mostly involves trawling the internet. Needless to say, they are mostly men. Furthermore, if you take notice of the gender of the columnists on most of the political websites on the internet, you will see that they are overwhelmingly men. Yes indeed. The men's movement is going to grow into the most massive organism. And, eventually, not only will no other group be able to compete with it, no other group will survive its wrath should it engender it. 5. Another huge problem that currently needs to be overcome is the fact that men - and this, unfortunately, includes most male political activists and journalists - do not seem to see 'men' as deserving of any consideration. They do not even seem to identify themselves as 'men'. There are loads of feminists, women writers, women's groups, women's activists, Women's Studies lecturers etc, constantly considering and talking about the world as it affects women. And there are, literally, billions of dollars annually being poured into privileging their views in some way. The concerns of women positively infuse the whole ether that envelops us. And the politicians and the media and the government continually take up their cause. But what do the men do? They talk about politics, government, war, football, the economy, taxes and genetic engineering. They never talk about themselves! For example, you would have thought that the plight of men who are having to engage in war would be of some considerable significance to a society. But if, for example, you have a quick browse through the titles of the articles of the influential anti-war.com, you will discover that the horrendous damage being done to men because of war is of no real significance at all. Indeed, we know that thousands of American men have been injured recently in Iraq - many of them very seriously indeed. But they do not even get a mention in the newspapers or on the TV news - e.g. see Wounded, Weary And Disappeared by Bill Berkowitz. Private Jessica Lynch is all over the headlines! On the other hand, Private Jessica Lynch is all over the headlines! And if men do want others to take their concerns seriously over important matters to do with, say, child custody, divorce, false accusations etc - especially in a public forum - then they quickly find themselves insulted and effectively silenced by malicious histrionic women and by women who have been brought up to luxuriate in - and to take advantage of - the ease with which they can convince others that they are permanent victims of some kind of abuse. Men can unjustifiably be deprived of their homes and their children, they can be falsely imprisoned for years on end, they can be falsely accused and punished with impunity, they can lose their health, their lives and their limbs on the battlefields and hardly anyone makes an issue out of such things. women, apparently, are damaged for life should someone fondle or even mention their sex-organs inappropriately And yet women, apparently, are damaged for life should someone fondle or even mention their sex-organs inappropriately, and there is not a day that goes by wherein the western media are not heaping hatred upon men for such relatively trivial events. And a major reason for this wholesale neglect of the men in our society is because the men themselves do not actually look upon themselves as 'men'. The economy needs this, and the economy needs that. Immigration is causing this, and immigration is causing that. Genetic engineering will lead to this, and it will also lead to that. Crime causes this, and crime causes that. But when it comes to 'men', well, they don't exist! Now. You might think that this neglect of 'men' has something to do with the inherently generous nature of men. Perhaps men were genetically designed not to consider their own welfare whereas women seem to have been designed to think of little else but themselves. And while, indeed, there is some considerable evidence for this, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are also very strong political forces at work that are deliberately designed to prevent the issues of concern to men from reaching the public consciousness whereas those of concern to women are purposefully highlighted to extreme levels. Dead men on battlefields become 'soldiers'. For example, the politically-corrected liberal media such as the BBC and the Guardian newspaper go to extraordinary lengths to downplay the gender of men who are suffering in some way. Men with prostate cancer become 'patients'. Dead men on battlefields become 'soldiers'. Drowned men on ships become 'sailors'. Men in prisons become 'prisoners'. The men held in Guantanamo become 'combatants'. But where women are suffering in some way, the complete opposite is true. Their gender is highlighted at every opportunity. Indeed, in the following article from the Telegraph it is astonishing to see how the author avoids highlighting the gender of the dead victims - who were all men ... The word 'men' is not mentioned once throughout the entire article. Not. Once! Those who died are referred to as 'sailors', 'crew', 'observers', 'victims', 'the dead' and 'submariners'. And so one of the main reasons that male journalists, authors and activists of every persuasion seem to be interested in all topics under the Sun - except the topic of 'men' - is because there has been a purposeful and deliberate policy among the most influential of media to suppress the topic of 'men' and to keep it out of the public consciousness - except, of course, where men are behaving badly in some way; in which case their gender is mentioned over and over again. And this is why, for example, men are getting such a raw deal in so many areas of their lives. They don't exist! But the tide is certainly going to turn And it is going to turn because male activists - whatever their politics, colour or creed - have far more in common with each other as 'men' than they have differences in connection with the things that they are typically arguing with each other about. For example, men might vote Left and they might vote Right, and they might fight like tigers over this and over that, but when it comes to "men's issues" they are very likely to vote in roughly the same way. But the problem has been that there is no 'vote' on "men's issues"! - because the very notion of "men's issues" barely exists out there in the political world and in the real world. There is almost no awareness of "men's issues". There is almost no awareness of "men's issues". And this what men's activists need to fight against. Issues of concern to men need to be highlighted, discussed and promoted on every political website and in every newspaper - whether the feminists like it or not. After all, they and their promotions of women's issues are absolutely everywhere. And what men's activists need to do is to try to encourage male activists and journalists in all areas to open their eyes to "men's issues". For example, if they are writing articles to do with war, then they should be hassled to focus not just on the guns, the terrain, the numbers of casualties, the political and economic outcomes etc, they should be urged to think about what it all means for the men who are involved. Indeed, they should take a lead from Hillary Clinton. This is what she said to the First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador in 1998. "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children." Do you see? "Women have always been the primary victims of war." The men are not only lost on the battlefield. Their decaying bodies are quickly pushed out of sight by the feminists. The feminists and women themselves do this sort of thing all the time. They look very closely at what things mean for 'women' in just about every area under discussion. And the men get pushed completely out of the way, And so men activists of all persuasions (no matter what they are activating about) need to be made to see that men, as 'men', are likely to have some considerable relevance to whatever it is that they are mostly concerned about. Of course, this is going to happen anyway, as men activists float around the internet and come across websites such as this. And it is going to happen quite quickly - well, quickly compared to how things used to be. Why? Well ... a. The internet is making it very easy for ideas to be spread. The feminist mullahs and their thought police will never be able to control the internet b. The feminist mullahs and their thought police will never be able to control the internet in the same way that they have managed to control the mainstream media. c. Most political activists are men. d. When it comes to most of the major issues that are of concern to 'MEN', most men are likely to be in much agreement over them and/or they are likely to be willing to compromise over them. For example, black men and white men might well come to verbal blows when arguing about matters to do with 'race'. But they are far less likely to do so when discussing issues that concern them as 'men'. Indeed, it is partly because of the fact that the issues of concern to 'men' have been swept under the carpet for so long - and, hence, very many bonds that unite men have been broken - that there is far greater disharmony, rudeness and aggression - particularly between men - right throughout our societies. After all, if men never focus their attention on the things that they have in common - as 'men' - then they are definitely missing out on something extremely important - important both for themselves and for their societies. 6. Men come in all sorts of guises. And they have many different views. But, as mentioned in the previous section, if men were to focus their attention more on issues to do with 'men', then they would find that they had a great deal in common. And this would be true even for those men who were poles apart on many other issues. Men argue about all sorts of things. They do not just argue about politics. They have widely different views on matters to do with economics, religion, philosophy, history, science, and on just about everything else that you can imagine. But if these men would just spend some of their time reflecting on issues that relate to them as 'men', they would mostly discover that they had far more in common than not. And to a large extent this is what the men's movement is about. However, there is one additional factor that needs to be understood with regard to the direction that the men's movement is going to take. This factor materialises largely because of the internet and the new computer technologies. And it is this. The men's movement is going to be dominated by men-who-sit-at-screens. The men's movement is going to be dominated by men-who-sit-at-screens. (This will be true for so many reasons - some of which are mentioned above - that it would take far too long to discuss them here.) And men-who-sit-at-screens are not particularly representative of men in general. More importantly, they are not particularly representative of those who have typically wielded the most power in the past. For example, ambitious politicians, soldiers bearing arms, feminists, racial leaders, wealthy corporate executives, union leaders, film stars, media moguls, and other such entities have led the way in the past. The men-who-sit-at-screens have not had much of a say! But the times they are a-changing. And the shift of power toward men-who-sit-at-screens will definitely bring about a change in the overall psychology of those who have the most influence. These will include male authors who write pieces on all sorts of different topics, computer folk who write software, design websites etc, security agents who scour the internet for information, activists of all persuasions, and others too numerous to mention. And then there are those men who just regularly log on to read the material that is online. These are not the same kind of people who have had power in the past. Their psychology is very different. No. Not in every case. But, statistically speaking, they are definitely very different. they are linking up to each other through all manner of routes And, through the internet, they are linking up to each other through all manner of routes. This, they have never been able to do before. And what the men's movement needs to do is to alert these men to those issues that should concern them as 'men'. By doing this they will encourage a dialogue that will link together men from everywhere. And, remember: Not only will these men find a great deal in common when it comes to the concerns of 'men', they will also have in common the fact that they all sit-at-screens. Their biology and their psychology are likely to be very similar. And these men are going to make up most of the brain cells of the organism that is the men's movement. If you are an FBI agent tracking this and that, or a police officer figuring out whodunnit, or a propounder of economic theory, or a software developer, or a political activist of some sort, or a poet, or whoever - if you are a man who sits at a screen, then you have a great deal in common with all of the other men-who-sit-at-screens, whosoever they might be. And as a greater and deeper recognition of this takes place among more and more of these individuals, so it is that the psychological profile of men-who-sit-at-screens will exert its will. And, in the not-too-distant future, no other organism will be able to compete with it. 7. Broadly speaking, I reckon that a man who sits at a screen will aim to achieve the following for himself. Good physical and mental health. Food. Shelter. Access to women. Peace. Security. Progress. Justice. Access to information. A world fit for his children. A non-violent environment. Things to interest him. Plenty of leisure time. Plenty of friends. And while, at first glance, this list might seem to cover just about everything that most normal people would aim for, in fact, this is not the case. It is in the interest of the abuse industry to create more abuse. The goals of many people (and many organisms) lie well outside this list. For example, it is in the interest of governments for crime and mayhem to exist. It is in the interest of the abuse industry to create more abuse. It is in the interest of companies that their employees work flat out. It is in the interest of music companies to have imposed upon people ridiculous copyright laws which create copyrights that last for decades. It is in the interest of criminals that they are not caught. It is in the interest of the politically correct that views which oppose them are silenced. It is in the interest of the mainstream media that the internet does not become a competitive force. There are many organisms that are the enemies of the typical man who sits at a screen. And, of course, women, in general, tend to have priorities, desires and interests which differ quite markedly from those of men. For example, women are more than happy for the justice system to be biased in their favour. They are happy indeed that the educational system has been tilted toward their needs. And so on. Well, this whole website is devoted to pointing out how the interests of women reign supreme and mightily over the interests of men and children. And so it is not worthwhile making a huge list here. Such a list could go on forever! The only point being made here is that the interests of men-who-sit-at-screens - as listed above in italics - clearly do not coincide with those of many powerful forces - organisms! And, in much the same way that these powerful organisms have achieved their aims at the expense of 'men' - and certainly without much apparent concern for 'men' - so it is that the organism that consists of men-who-sit-at-screens will aim to achieve its aims without much concern for anything that stands in its way. Indeed, because the concerns of men-who-sit-at-screens are almost certainly going to average out statistically into being pretty much as identified in the list above (in italics) then the organism that consists of men-who-sit-at-screens should have no guilt at all about pursuing its aims ruthlessly. After all, the aims are pretty noble ones! As such, identifying, targeting and disempowering those people and those organisms that interfere with the desires of men-who-sit-at-screens is something that is going to happen. For example, politicians take away the power of men-who-sit-at-screens to govern their own lives. As such, politicians will find themselves being undermined by men-who-sit-at-screens - with some being undermined more than others. Perhaps the tax regime in a certain state is unfavourable toward men-who-sit-at-screens. And so it will come under increasing attack. feminism, well, let's just say that it has not much longer to live. And feminism, well, let's just say that it has not much longer to live. Conversely, things that are of benefit to men-who-sit-at-screens will be promoted. For example, it is in the interests of men-who-sit-at-screens to promote the development of computer technology, to have access to information, to advance the status of their computer departments in the workplace, to encourage more men (and people) to roam the internet, and so on. And in the near future, and partly thanks to the men's movement, men-who-sit-at-screens will begin to understand that, together, they represent a truly mighty force. A huge force! It does not matter whether they are on the left or on the right, and if they are fighting like dogs. The truth of the matter is this - whether they like it or not. If they are 'men', and they also sit at screens and they also keep reading about the same kind of stuff, then they really, and truly, and very deeply have a great deal in common - far more so than they usually recognise. And the reason that they usually do not recognise this commonality is largely due to the fact that they do not see themselves as 'men'! But, one day, they will! And, at some point in the future, the psychological force that they create will dwarf all others. And so, all in all, the future seems quite rosy for men-who-sit-at-screens. Regretfully, however, there is a teensy problem that needs to be addressed. And it is this. Time is running out! There are three hugely important factors that are going to end up changing the course of the world 7. There are three hugely important factors that are going to end up changing the course of the world significantly in the very near future. a. The traditional sources of authority are losing their powers at a very rapid rate. Not only are the new communication technologies like the internet increasingly empowering individuals and activist groups to an enormous extent, they are, at the very same time, draining power away from those entities that have historically wielded the most power. One only has to look at how President Bush and Tony Blair are currently under siege over the Iraq situation - and how constrained they both now are - to see how the 'spread of information' is, effectively, restricting even the most powerful of institutions from pursuing their aims. b. Within the next five or ten years - if not sooner - biological WMDs will probably be able to be manufactured by graduate students. And people with money will certainly be able to get their hands on such things. They could be terrorists, drug dealers, organised crime syndicates or, indeed, simply people with wealth who would like to get their hands on something that will provide them with enormous power and, hence, enormous protection. c. As a consequence of a. and b. above, western governments and their officials are going to come increasingly under attack. Whether it is the men's movement demanding more rights for men, pot-smokers demanding the legalisation of cannabis, or Al-Quaeda demanding more rights for Arabs, the 'little guy' is increasingly going to get his way. And western governments - on their own - have no hope of overcoming such forces. western societies are very likely to become ungovernable and chaotic. The upshot is that western societies are very likely to become ungovernable and chaotic. But there is one organism that might just save the day. And it is the only organism that could do so. And it is the one made up of men-who-sit-at-screens. There really is no other group of individuals that will be able to stop the catastrophes that are highly likely to take place in the future. I am not exaggerating, or being over-dramatic, or trying to scare people. We really and truly are heading toward a diabolical mess. Furthermore, not only can we not rely on our governments to save us, they are, to a large extent, one of the major causes of many of the problems that we face. For example, the war on drugs enriches and empowers the most serious criminals of all. The feminist agenda that western governments have pursued has alienated millions of men and broken apart millions of families. The attempts by politicians to suck up power to the federal levels in America and to Brussels in Europe are stirring up more and more civilian anger. The situation in the Middle East is not going very well at all. And 9/11 was a pretty grim affair. The list of government failures is almost endless. The list of government failures is almost endless. And as governments lose more of their control so it is that matters can only get worse. So. What can we do? 8. Well, of course, you, yourself, do not actually need to do anything, because the organism that is the men's movement, and the core of it that is made up of men-who-sit-at-screens, is going to grow quite happily without you. Furthermore, it will begin to unite men from left to right, from black to white, throughout the western world - and beyond. No other organism has the ability to take over the hugely widespread area of psychological and informational space that is needed to deal successfully with the future. No other organism can achieve this breadth and magnitude. Anyway. In summary ... 1. The media are the 'brains' of our societies. Journalists and media folk therefore need to be encouraged to further the cause of 'men'. And those that do the opposite need to be opposed and undermined. 2. The men's movement is growing, and it is men-who-sit-at-screens, particularly on the internet, who are going to exert an extremely powerful force. 3. This organism will grow from the 'bottom up' quite happily on its own, but it will be spurred onward much more quickly through the activities of men's activists. 4. There are men's activists operating in all areas, and, on the internet, they are doing all sorts of things. And most political activists are men. Men's activists need to get these men to involve themselves in men's issues, and they should not worry too much about the 'sheeple'. In other words, men's activists on the internet - whether they write articles, run websites or belong to particular activist groups - need to attract the attention of those men who are already clearly involved in political activism rather than waste their time in trying to rouse the 'sheeple'. 5. One of the major impediments to the growth of the men's movement is the fact that even though most political activists are men, they do not actually see themselves as 'men'. The very topic barely exists. This is an area that men's activists need to address by trying to get men's issues into the forefront of the minds of men whose activism lies in other areas. Men-who-sit-at-screens have an enormous amount in common 6. Men-who-sit-at-screens have an enormous amount in common, particularly if they share the same interests. And this is true even if they have opposing views with regard to them. 7. The only organism that has any real hope of averting disaster by steering people, organisations and governments into more fruitful directions is the men's movement. No other organism has the ability to take over the hugely widespread area of psychological and informational space that is needed to deal successfully with the future. As such, men-who-sit-at-screens should seek to undermine all those forces that oppose 'men', or that oppose them as 'men-who-sit-at-screens', and they should also promote those forces that support them. And they should do so very vigorously, before it is too late! e.g. see ... |
AH's RSS Feed
Recent comments from some emails which can be viewed in full here. ...
"I cannot thank you enough."
"I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages."
"I want to offer you my sincere thanks."
"Your articles and site in general have changed my life."
"I have been reading your articles for hours ..."
"Firstly let me congratulate you on a truly wonderful site."
"I must say there aren't many sites that I regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, ..."
"It is terrific to happen upon your website."
"I just wanted to say thank you for making your brilliant website."
"Your site is brilliant. It gives me hours of entertainment."
"You are worth your weight in gold."
"Love your site, I visit it on a regular basis for relief, inspiration and for the sake of my own sanity in a world gone mad."
"I ventured onto your site ... it's ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours!"
"I love the site, and agree with about 98% of what you post."
"I have been reading your site for a while now – and it is the best thing ever."
"you are doing a fabulous job in exposing the lies that silly sods like me have swallowed for years."
On YouTube ...
Who Rules Over Us?
Part 1 On Free Will
Part 2 On Super-Organisms
Part 3 On Power
Part 4 On Reality
Popular articles ...
... War on Drugs - Who benefits from the war on drugs?
... A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle - Surely, the evidence would suggest otherwise.
... Why Governments Love Feminism - It is mostly to do with money and power, not equality.
... The Psychological Differences Between Men and Women - Are women really more emotional than men?
... Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable - especially since Hilary Clinton said that, "Women are the primary victims of war."
... Cultural Marxism And Feminism - The connections between Cultural Marxism and Feminism.
AH's RSS Feed