A Little Chat Somewhere in the Sector
The postings on this blog are syndicated to several different places. One of those venues is a particular men's rights forum, where an interesting discussion followed from the post immediately prior to this. See News From the Real World.
The first to respond was a certain 'Hahoo', whom I will call a "pro-male partisan" since I am not sure if he calls himself an MRA, and heaven help me, but if I called him that he might skin me alive! ;)
I have been acquainted with Hahoo for quite some time, under the various web names he has employed, and let me say that he is a forward-thinking man, a man of advanced ideas and considerable savvy. Put it this way: he drinks upstream from the herd.
Hahoo makes the following comment:
|"Where is the condemnation of the whole concept of child support as dictated by the state? |
"There are so many things wrong with the MRM..
"Firstly, they start off from pretty much the same position that the feminists do..
"Bleating about how they are "oppressed" and demanding "rights" etc..
"Then, they use the same tactics as the feminists..
"Whinging, complaining, asking nanny state to give a shit.. which it doesnt! The state simply wants to extract the max it can get away with from the fathers, to subsidise its own expenses in family destruction..
"Child support is nothing other than an additional "tax" burden that targets fathers, who have no fucking rights anyway!
"Men are not responsible for childrens upbringing, the state is, that is clear because men are DENIED their natural role!!
"Whenever I see MRAs and fathers activists talking about child support, they are forever moaning about the LEVELS of child support, NOT the whole sick concept of it!!
"Men do not VOLUNTARILY give up their kids, they are removed from them. Thus, they are PREVENTED from supporting their kids!"
In answer to Hahoo's comment I, Fidelbogen, posted the following, in the customary internet manner of "snip and respond":
|Where is the condemnation of the whole concept of child support as dictated by the state? There are so many things wrong with the MRM.. |
Firstly, they start off from pretty much the same position that the feminists do..
Bleating about how they are "oppressed" and demanding "rights" etc
I see that I am looking at the problem from a whole different vantage than you are, but. . . I must admit that your vantage is excellent. You are making me ponder.
Really, from the standpoint of pure STRATEGY, the "bleating" which you describe is about the worst behavior I can imagine. (Although it may sometimes have tactical value. . .)
But seriously, when you are dealing with a force like feminism, you are dealing with a BULLY. And bleating doesn't work with a bully; it just makes you a punk; it makes you a sucker! Which is why I am developing a philosophy of ruthless psychological arm-twisting in dealing with the feminists and their allies. Start with a cogent analysis, a map of the terrain. Then, AGITATE, and activate the world against them. After a certain point, you are dealing from a position of power, and then the whole game changes . . .
| Then, they use the same tactics as the feminists.. |
Whinging, complaining, asking nanny state to give a shit.. which it doesnt! The state simply wants to extract the max it can get away with from the fathers, to subsidise its own expenses in family destruction..
All right, I try to see the tactical advantage in this: It generates publicity; it makes more people aware of the problem. Which means that you can begin to engineer a demographic groundswell against feminist ideology and politics. Eventually, this is like shaking a big, fat political fist in their face. That is the language which a bully understands.
As the feminists would say, it's empowering.
And once you've got that kind of power, you can begin to organize and do ALL kinds of things, limited only by your creative imagination. Yes, guys like yourself could THEN step up and start preaching your anti-statist gospel, and do so FAR more effectively, with a primed and receptive audience. . .
| Child support is nothing other than an additional "tax" burden that targets fathers, who have no fucking rights anyway! |
Men are not responsible for childrens upbringing, the state is, that is clear because men are DENIED their natural role!!
Whenever I see MRAs and father's activists talking about child support, they are forever moaning about the LEVELS of child support, NOT the whole sick concept of it!!
First things first: Build a support base; build a mass movement. And in order to do THAT, you must be careful what you preach during the initial stages. It is like building a campfire: you must nurse the small flame along very very carefully, shelter it, blow on it gently, feed it the driest of tinders, and work your way up to kindling, etc, et al. If all goes well, then soon you've got a roaring blaze, with people gathered around to warm themselves, and you can give away firebrands to those who need them. . .
Once you've got that mass movement started, all things become possible. But in the early stages, the important thing is publicity, and the best plan for THAT is to appeal to public emotion without advocating ideas that are TOO controversial or too far ahead of what the public mind can readily comprehend . . .
When you generate that mass base, you prepare the ground; you foster a climate where people dare to entertain novel ideas. You grease the wheels and get them rolling; you generate the momentum of change in the first place.
And having once gotten to THAT point, you step up and start preaching.
|Men do not VOLUNTARILY give up their kids, they are removed from them. Thus, they are PREVENTED from supporting their kids!|
Excellently said. I must remember that!In response to my response, Hahoo wrote at VERY great length, the following:
|Yes, I have a feeling I need to put together my thoughts.. |
The problem is, there are many, many thoughts..
They are also integrated from many years of being honed on varied forums in response to the usual stimuli..
My difficulty is, I cant really address the masses, I never have been able to, my message only comes across correctly to those who have studied the ground and been dealing with the masses themselves..
The masses are too brainwashed..
I have a natural disinclination for dealing with brainwashed people!!
I have a natural inclination to swearing at them in frustration and stuffing their dicks in their mouths as they seek to show me their wonderful "new formula for the fair child-support levels.."
Experts in the mens movement have been telling me all along that i am jumping ahead, that I have to feed the info out bit by bit..
But, I dont seem able to do that, because it is too bloody much!!
I can put it simply, the state has stolen our roles under the pretext of "childrens best interest"..
But the state does not have a VESTED INTEREST in our children like we parents do!!
The states vested interest is in its future slave stock.. Not the same level of interest as what parents have!!
And, the state is NOT A PARTY TO the decision to CREATE children.. That is decided by parents alone!!
Hence, the state really should NOT be claiming OUR children!
Should not be artificially constraining and defining our relationships with our children.. Or each other..
And we really need to to get this message across!!
The "moderate" MRM gets the support of the masses..
In the same way as a bus would get the support of the masses if they wanted to be moved..
I want the masses to claim the appropriate vehicle to move them, one that runs on THIER OWN timetable, not state decree!!
You know, several years ago I used to frequent a mens forum, and they were forever bragging about their "perfect" court orders, how they had contact with their kids just as they wanted, how they defined it..
Do we want to run to a fucking weekly timetable in our dealings with our kids?
Is that what MEN really want?
If thats what they want, then they deserve to get nothing but ripped the piss out of!!
We really need to move towards understanding a certain fact of life..
Parents should have open access to their kids, that is how parents do their job best..
Court orders should not be needed!!
"Child support" is raising your kids, not paying the other parent money!!
Anyway, I may be changing my emphasis in this game shortly..
It seems that there is a need for some education material to be created and developed!!
I May be joining the blogosphere shortly, something I thought I would never do!!
There are many good writers in the MRM, I will have to read up on them a bit more and add my contributions..
They are certainly easier fellows to work with than the brain-dead plebs that you find in the pussy-whipped moderates groups!!
Id turn the whole system on its head..
The list of "family law" crimes would probably start with the first and foremost crime..
Impeding a parent in his/her contact with his/her children..
The state does not need to know WHY a parent is wanting to have contact with his/her children..
It needs to know WHY a person is seeking to stop this!!
Simply put, a father should be able to enter any home, building, anywhere, where his kids are and the offences that may be committed under these circumstances would relate primarily to ANYONE WHO IMPEDES HIM!
Dont pity the lawyers that would lose their business!
In the case of parents wanting CS money off another parent..
The issue should be..
Why are the kids living with the parent who does not have the means to support them?
Would it not be better to have them homed with the parent that has the money?
|Military concept - 'Friendly Forces'. |
Biblical stance - 'The enemy of mine enemy, is my friend'.
Contemporary culture - "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you glad to see me'?
Let's hear it for Cheryl Quiambao.
But wait. . . not quite, for it pleases me to expand a bit more, here in the leisurely space of my study, for the benefit of CF readers at large.
Naturally, I am licking my chops in anticipation of Hahoo's projected blogospheric debut. For we could certainly use some new blood around here, if you will pardon the expression! ;) Hahoo says that the writers of the MRM are an easier lot to work with, and since he speaks in comparative terms based on his own experience, who am I to doubt his assessment? We writerly ones can dispense with moderation because we type away in our ivory towers free from the exigencies of real-world political engagement: our freedom is to speak with candor.
Hahoo and I have both arrived at a similar conclusion, namely, that you must not "beg" for things from any so-called established authority, but simply take what is properly yours by whatever means, beginning with a rhetoric of straightforward, uncompromising demand. I like to summarize this strategy by saying that "the time for argument is past", or again by saying "I don't argue with feminists, I tell them things!" Feminism's supposed "authority" is a bald-headed presumption, a massive fraud, a swindle from the very outset, and within our sovereign hearts and minds we continue uncolonized by that presumption, that fraud, that swindle.
Now, while Hahoo focuses somewhat monomaniacally upon the crimes against fathers and families,—and views that situation through the lens described above—I am paradoxically a monomaniacal generalist. For me, the game is the thing; the whole chessboard! I sit on my mountain top with my spyglass, scoping the battle plain below and analyzing what I see—miles and miles of it. Yet I cannot fix my gaze for long upon one point, for I am distractable. I strive to comprehend the entire mess as an organism; as a unity; as one thing, held together by laws. Hence, mono-mania.
Hahoo's impatience for revolution, though certainly understandable, is that of a man who would set a match to a log in hope that it would straightway catch fire. His impatience with so-called moderates is also understandable; it is an impatience I fully share. And yet I counsel moderation, NOT because my views are moderate, but rather because I know as a point of sheer pragmatism, that some revolutions must be brought about by systematic steps if they are to be brought about AT ALL. Yes. . . I am also a pragmatist. That might be the most important thing about me: in the end, my "moderation" is really pragmatism.
Whatever moves things forward, moves things forward. That is my governing maxim: it is objectively unbeatable. And if, let us say, the bus goes only halfway to your destination, and is filled with people you could happily live without, what of that? You are still halfway to your destination, and if worse comes to worst you can always walk the remaining distance—which is always better than walking the entire way.
The general public mind is the mind of a simpleton. Don't expect too much too fast in the way of comprehension. The collective mind is slow to grasp a novel idea, and having once done so, equally slow to release hold of it in favor of the next idea. On and on it goes; it is maddening, but what can you do? Still, it is hardly surprising: if you have ever tried to redirect the belief system of just one individual, you know how hopeless THAT can be. So, just imagine the colossal energy required for a collective mind transformation involving millions, and don't be hard on yourself if your heart quails at the task.
In the realm of mass movement formation, resign yourself to a slow build, a gradual ramping effect, an incrementative stair-stepping process of awakening realization. You can't normally expect the masses to leap from A to Z in a single bold flash. You must introduce them to B, and C, and so on. By the time you arrive at (say) H, they just might make that titanic leap to Z . . . or then again, you might need to walk them a few steps further. Bear in mind also, that in the realm of propaganda a "big truth" works just as well as a "big lie"—the operative principle being merely that of repetition.
The main reason activated sector partisans such as MRAs shoot themselves in the foot and give themselves an image problem, is that they talk too far above the heads of the larger world. Furthermore, they do this audibly. Very audibly. Too audibly. And stridently. And the bearing of their discourse is often quite obscure; they tend to fulminate intemperately about subtle categories of offense and grievance which the average outsider—feminist or otherwise—cannot directly get a handle upon. Worse yet, they call out bad things about women with such reckless abandon and such wild disregard for rhetorical discipline, that for the average outsider it is too apt to sound like "misogyny"—which in a few individual cases it may in fact be. Of course, the feminists are lightning-quick to bang the misogyny gong at such moments because, being feminists, they would do that! So in a sense, it takes two to tango.
To sum up, I would fault "Joe MRA" for his lack of rhetorical discipline as sketched above, and more to the point his hot-headedness in the public eye. He wields the flamethrower, the broadsword, the sledgehammer, the neanderthal club. He needs to get acquainted with the stiletto.
And I would fault the pro-male movement at large, for neglecting not just rhetorical discipline, but a related thing called message discipline. It is important to keep things simple, to drive home a limited number of carefully selected points, to spotlight both the clear and undoubted transgressions against men, and feminism's clear and undoubted entanglements in such matters. Harp upon these things; be a "Johnny one-note." It is a winning strategy to know your enemy's weak points and concentrate your firepower overwhelmingly upon those points. Don't be an MRA who lugs extra baggage, who sets extraneous political issues on the table—that makes the battle unnecessarily large and victory less certain! Let the movement present a "no-frills MRA" image to the world at large; a non-exceptionable surface.
So really, you needn't roar to make your point. For example, instead of screaming that "feminism must be destroyed!!", why not discourse calmly upon the neutralization of anti-male politics, and explore the varied methodologies that might carry such neutralization into effect? You will surely draw more listeners that way, because you will intrigue them—it's all in the way you say it! Moreover, you'll stand a better chance of engaging their sympathy: not only do you appear in a more flattering light, but you present yourself as against anti-male politics rather than against "feminism". And never fear: the deeper truth—that these two things are identical—will be lost upon the generality, or at least until such time as they attain this realization in their own way, and comprehend the truth of it for themselves.
By keeping it simple, by keeping it focused, by keeping it suave, and by keeping to things that the broad mass of people can readily (and viscerally) comprehend, we will activate the non-feminist sector and swell the potential demographic army against feminism. After that, the sky's the limit.