The Gathering Clouds of War
"The problem with Sacks is that he is politically incoherent. There is little doubt -- and no fair minded person would say otherwise -- that Sacks has done some tremendous work exposing the injustice done to men. However, his understanding of the political reality surrounding our fight is limited because, I suspect, he has not yet freed himself from the grip of his past feminist beliefs. Feminism is a cult and you can take the man out of the cult, but taking the cult out of the man is much more difficult.I was inspired to dash off a quick reply:
"When Sacks says something like, "1) I still nurture the dream that someday feminists and fatherhood activists can understand each other and work together," he betrays an astonishing naïveté towards both the nature and aims of feminism. That can only be because a part of him is still sympathetic to their cause. I believe that Sacks has seen the damage being done by feminism but he fails to see that it is deliberate. He seems to think that this damage is an unintentional by-product of a noble cause. NOTHING could be further from the truth. I would urge him to. . . do more research."
Re: (USA) "Men's rights" groups go mainstreamFollowing his intro, George has shared an entire e-mail from another activist, from which the quotation given below is excerpted:
Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2009 5:58 pm
Thank you so very much for sharing this! SO much is happening now, and things are changing SO quickly, and there is SO much that people like us need to keep up with and learn about—and yet, we all have our domains of specialization, which regrettably all too often generates tunnel vision. I know that I myself am guilty of such tunnel vision, especially recently with this Kevin Driscoll case I've been covering. It has been a tremendous learning experience and yet, it has consumed nearly all of my focus when there are SO many other things going on which I ought to be thinking about and blogging about.
So again, I thank you for the timely 'nudge' prompting me to look up from my work and realize that some huge things are taking place while I am standing directly beneath them, in their shadow, and none the wiser.
The opposition is slandering us, but in the end they cannot stop us. And the fact that our sector is becoming so very activated ought to give them a clue about something. If we are truly putting rotten meat on the table, then why are so many gathering for the banquet?
"Three articles are provided below FYI.All right. First, here is the Glenn Sacks article which the writer refers to:
"The first is a response, by Glenn Sacks, to the following two attacking and deceitful articles by feminists, seeking to minimise and shut down the growing work men and separated fathers are doing for their children and themselves.
"Feminist dissembling (attacking and trying to pull apart, with the intent of diminishing and dismissing) continues as men and fathers continue working for the rights, their children, and themselves."
When you have finished reading that one, go have a look at the two feminist propaganda pieces which Glenn is trying to rebut:
At Salon.Com: http://tinyurl.com/ybjxc45
At Slate: http://tinyurl.com/y9bnwkk
Very well. I hope this gives you some idea of the scale of developments. Things are starting to move in a rather big way, and we are becoming an important blip on the radar screen. And the opposing sector is responding about as you might expect them to do, which is to say: more of the same on a larger scale. They are doing what they have always done: lying, smearing, distorting, cherry-picking, glossing over, misrepresenting, acting smug, ducking the issue,
I like how one of the linked writers puts men's rights in quotation marks: "men's rights". When writers use inverted commas that way, they typically wish to conjure a psychic distance from the matter in question, to evoke a mood of "irony", to "invite the reader to join the club of those who know better." Evidently, the feminist author feels that there is something fishy or peculiar about the idea that men have rights. For some reason, that idea sticks in the writer's craw.
Anyhow, Glenn Sacks is conspicuously wrong about two things: 1.) Angry Harry is no idiot, and 2.) Like it or not, Angry Harry's voice carries a lot of weight in "the movement"—especially in England, but over here as well.
Furthermore, Angry Harry has been a big help in the Kevin Driscoll case, and I know there are some people in Central Oregon who might not share Glenn Sacks's evaluation of him. Speaking of Glenn, last I heard he has had nothing to say about the Driscoll case, although I admit I haven't checked back in a while.
Angry Harry has said a few things concerning the infamous George Sodini which bear a quick looking-into in this post. In a nutshell, that men are being treated appallingly, and that we must logically expect more people like Sodini, Lepine, and so on, to crop up in the world as a result of forces that are being applied to men as a group.
That is exactly what I say, and have always said, although my terminology and my analytical pathway might differ somewhat. I believe that we will see a statistical growth of dysfunctional male behavior owing to feminist innovation and the varied fruit which this innovation has borne in the world. This is simply a PREDICTION, yet certain feminists have the bewildering arrogance and sheer unmitigated gall to call such statements a "threat" — a prescription, in other words!
Rubbish! Prediction is not prescription! The truth is, that I am nothing more than a guy standing by the roadside waving a red flag to warn people of a danger that lies ahead! I want them to turn back before it's too late! And they have the fu*king nerve to call this a "threat"?? Hell man, I don't make threats because I don't NEED to! If I really had evil intentions, do you know what I would do??
Nothing. That's right. . . nothing! ZIP! I would just shrug my shoulders and say "fine, to hell with them! To hell with the whole wide world!" I would simply stop caring, and wash my hands of the whole mess, and merrily Go My Own Way! In fact, I might just end up doing that eventually—you never know!
What the world has most to fear from men is not "male violence", but male indifference! Yes, that is God's truth even if you don't want to hear it! Men in greater and greater numbers will simply fold their arms and turn their backs and walk away—unless lifeboat seats are at stake, in which case they'll be shoving women out of them! Men today are being treated appallingly and heinously, so what else might you logically expect from them? Mere indifference—THAT is what the world has to fear from men! Yes, spectacular eruptions of male violence will predictably happen, and such episodes will predictably capture both headlines and a disproportionately inflated attention from feminists who care only about ideology and anti-male spin . . . but vastly more men will merely shrug their shoulders, fold their arms, turn their backs, and walk away. Indeed, they are doing this already.
And let me warn you: more feminism will only make the situation worse. . . and worse . . . and worse!
MORE FEMINISM . . IS NOT THE ANSWER!
I hate to sound like I am tooting my own horn, but it's a risk I shall take. In this pillar post, I do a lot of predicting and analyzing. Go and judge for yourselves how well the predictions have stood the test of time, and arm yourselves with the intellectual ammunition that you will find stockpiled there.
For those who are following the Kevin Driscoll case, and were hoping to find an update, be assured that Angela has supplied a report of Tuesday's proceedings and that I will post it by tomorrow (Thursday) at the latest.