Thursday, June 14, 2012

The Necessary Metamorphosis of the MRM

I will share some more thoughts inspired by the debut video, of Eincrou, which I posted in the previous entry.

There is a school of thought, in pro-male cyberspace, which lives by the maxim of "keep it apolitical". I confess that I'm part of that faction myself, and that I helped to create it. It is all a question of message discipline, which is a department of rhetorical discipline. Such things are vitally important if you would craft a so-called "movement" which draws upon topical issues as a rallying point.

There is also a school of thoughtlessness, in pro-male cyberspace, which flaps its gums about all manner of things only loosely related (if at all) to feminism, men's rights, and the like. That is for starters. Additionally, the fact that they will sometimes voice indiscreet, impolitic opinions, serves to compound the original difficulty.

Again, if you aim to create a politically efficient "movement" with a snowball's chance of gaining followers and  traction, you must stick to a limited set of issues and govern your tongue when you speak of those things.

I would submit that the so-called men's "movement" is nothing of the kind. Rather, it amounts to a group of  people, largely male, who are talking loudly about a number of things. But the sum of all this is much like an orchestra with no conductor, where the musicians are out of tune with each other and playing different tunes anyway.

The general public, walking outside the orchestra hall, hears only a frightful racket from within. The bigoted bassoonist, the anti-semitic saxophonist, the conservative clarinetist, the anti-feminist flugelhorn player, the PUA piccolo player, and so on. It all runs together into a dreadful audio slurry.

And so the general public draws its varied conclusions about that sum total of weird noise, and those conclusions are often unfavorable. The general public, you see, generally doesn't know what the hell is going on. Some of them may enter the building, and wander around, and talk to the musicians separately, and begin to form a more educated understanding of things. Yes, many of them do this to varying degrees. But many others never investigate further than the sidewalk and what they can hear from there.

Very well. The "men's movement" is no movement at all, but simply a lot of random motion. And such words as "MRA" and "MRM" are only ad hoc terminology. Figures of speech. Convenience words.  People persist in using those words because they are, well . .  convenient! They simplify discussion, and even make discussion possible in the first place.

But these words also falsify the state of reality. And our enemies, the feminists, capitalize on this. All they must do, is fan the flames of doubt and distaste in the public mind. This, precisely, has been the feminist strategy. A smear job. Moral ghettoization. Guilt by proximity.

Anybody who simply talks against feminism will be called an "MRA", or a member of the "MRM".

Now, there is nothing wrong with talking against feminism. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, talking against feminism is one of the finest things a person can do. It is a noble thing to do. Feminism is a social cancer, and talking against it is part of the necessary process that will lead toward the eventual destruction of it. So by all means, yes, talk against feminism!

By the way, when you merely "criticize" feminism from within feminism, that is not talking against feminism. Talking against feminism means talking AGAINST it, from an alien standpoint completely outside of its borders.

All hail anti-feminism!

But the trouble is, that the person who simply talks against feminism will be shoved into the same box, willy-nilly, with. . . oh. .  . PUAs, ex-patriate pussy-hunters, conspiracy theorists, racists, anti-government radicals, tea-partiers, bonafide misogynists, and a whole lot of other people. I mean, people whose philosophical venn diagrams might overlap yours by a narrow slice at most. Admittedly, the inherent goodness or badness of those things will vary -- it is not my point to discuss their inherent goodness or badness. The point is that, like it or not, the words "MRA" and "MRM" have been jammed into the same jar with the motley crew listed above, even if there is no inherent reason why they should be. And so if you identify as an "MRA", or even just get identified as one, then you will go there too.

Once more, to get identified as an "MRA" or an "MRM person", all you must do is to talk against feminism. That's it. After that, public ignorance, combined with feminist propaganda, will do the rest.  And presto-chango, you are now a PUA or a Tea Party member even if you never remotely signed up for the likes of those.

Again, let's be clear that talking against feminism is a good thing. The point is, that you can do this either well or poorly in terms of political strategies -- and some people do it very poorly indeed.

But enough for the bad stuff. Now let's talk about sunbeams and silver linings.

I mentioned that the "MRM" is not a movement. That is the silver lining.

So what, then, is the so-called men's rights "movement", if not a movement? Get ready.

It is a microcosm of the human race. In other words, it is THE WORLD.

And so, it is not accountable for itself, any more than the world is accountable for itself. The world is simply the ecumenical human condition, with all of its lights and shadows, in toto. And the ecumenical human condition simply is what it is. We are all part of that ecumenical human condition, but as individuals our liability is limited.

Feminism, on the other hand, may be usefully defined as a movement, and for that reason can be held accountable as a movement. It is a part of the world, but it is not the world -- even though it pretends to be.

But no, feminism is merely an interpretation of what the world is, forced upon the world in defiance of what the world in fact is. Alternately stated, feminism is a violation of the natural order and the laws which compose that order.

Therefore every natural law or principle which feminist theory violates becomes our enlisted ally against the feminist regime itself.  And so the character of our revolution is not just demographic or political. It is radically primordial. 

Yes, that is us. We are the world, nay, the universe! And we are radically primordial.

In retrospect, we can see that this had to happen. It was predictable. There was a point beyond which feminist innovation could not push without the universe pushing back. And let me tell you, pushback from the universe can be a bitch!

So the "MRM" is not a movement as that word is generally understood, but a primordial pushback against feminism. And it involves a chaotic array of forces that can never be reduced to conventional categories of understanding. New categories are necessary.

Rather than calling the "MRM" a "movement" -- singular -- we should call it a complex of movements -- plural! -- which are now in process of formation. But as a whole, it lacks the structural unity that would subject it to accountability. As I have stated, it is a microcosm of the world, and is no more accountable for itself than the world is accountable for itself.

The feminist smear tricks are not working because our numbers, worldwide, continue to swell. Every slander campaign against us only helps us by giving us publicity. People drop by for a closer look, and plenty of them stick around. And then they pass the word along to their friends.

So the microcosm is growing, and merging with the macrocosm. The so-called "MRM", you see, merely represents that portion of the non-feminist sector which has become politically aware of itself.  And the size of the self-aware portion increases on a snowballing growth curve.

In light of all this, what does it mean -- and what could it mean -- to keep things "apolitical"? Well for starters, I would call that entire realm of conversation a misunderstanding. For in fact this thing of ours has never been apolitical in the first place. Seriously, what do we understand by "political"? Does politics mean the struggle for power, influence, and self-determination? All right, then how has our project ever been anything other than political? It has been, I submit, political indeed, for it has always focused on power and the accumulation of it by one device or another. Yes, that is what I call politics.

When people talk about keeping the so-called MRM "apolitical", they're voicing a fear lest it be caught up in established categories of power struggle, eventually being co-opted and rendered worthless for its original purpose. This is more commonly expressed, as I myself have done, by saying that the movement will pick up counterproductive baggage and sink beneath the weight of it. 

Well in a strange way the good news becomes the bad news, and then the bad news immediately becomes the good again. The original good news is, that our numbers keep growing. Then the bad news is, that we are taking undisciplined people and their counterproductive baggage on board. Yet directly from this bad news the original good news grows once more, namely, that in spite of such inconveniences -- and indeed because of them -- our numbers continue to swell. So the good and bad news feed upon each other like yin and yang.

The lesson we draw from this, is that ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WANT TO BE LIBERATED FROM FEMINISM. Some of these are good people, some of these are bad people, some of these are indifferent people. But they want to be liberated from feminism, and they are worthy of getting what they want. 

Every god-damned blessed one of them.

They needn't do one single precious thing in all the world to earn this or deserve this.

ALL people deserve to be liberated from feminism. Even the worst misogynist or rapist who ever lived deserves to be liberated from feminism.

 The whole wide world deserves to be liberated from feminism.

All people should, ideally, get the justice they deserve for their misdeeds. But they should NOT get that justice under color of feminism.

They should get the justice they deserve under color of something else -- some other system of  law or morality.

But NOT under color of feminism.

One more time: the whole wide world deserves to be liberated from feminism.

And you know what? The whole wide world will wake up to this, and demand it.

So it is silly to fuss about the ideological purity of any so-called "men's movement", because the whole wide world is coming on board and there is simply no way that the whole wide world can be ideologically pure. Therefore, if some feminist wants to slander the so-called men's movement, you have only to demand "WHICH men's movement??".

And then, demand to be left in peace.

Because there is no such thing as this "men's movement". In its own right, it does not exist. So it is up to you to create it for yourself. There are ten, twenty, forty, a hundred different "men's movements", and when you start your own, that will bring the total to a-hundred-and-one.

What's that, you don't like the baggage that certain people are lugging on board? Fine. Pack your own bags onto your own wagon, and go your own road. With the growth of our numbers, we need no longer cling for dear life to any possible shipmate. We can afford to be choosy.

Understand that every philosophy or life-system which expands beyond a certain point will fractionate into schisms, and those schisms into schisms. The reason is simple. It is because the system naturally pulls in more and more of the world's variety as it grows in number. It cannot possibly do otherwise, because the world is never monolithic.

But this is a good thing. It is a source of strength and a cause for celebration. To us, it means that our enemy can no longer smear us, because you can't smear something which is spread all over the landscape in the first place, can you? With our growing numbers and our variety of schisms, we are out of the box and we are everywhere, like a wraparound environment. It is impossible to shake a stick at us any more because you can't shake a stick in all directions. So by reason of our ambient character we are, or soon will be, in a position to define the cultural ambience and even control the discourse.

The pro-male project as we have known it, is the germinating bud of something larger called the non-feminist revolution. Feminism's war against the world started with the war against men, but that war quickly spread  because it was impossible to contain it. So the non-feminist revolution has developed in the same sequence as feminist aggression itself -- first with men, who understand best of all what is happening, and then spreading to larger circles and pulling in growing numbers of women.

The recent growth of anti-feminist feeling on the political Left signals a tectonic change in the political landscape. It signals that feminism's intellectual reign of terror is weakening among that cohort -- and the implications of such a development are perilous for feminism's power base! But this development, like so much else, was a predictable thing that had to happen and, in the context of primordial pushback, couldn't possibly not have happened.

Very well. Disciplined work lies ahead, but I can see that the field of opportunity is wide open.


Note the following:


Anonymous Go Ghost said...

I agree the men's movement isn't an organized movement at all. It is more of a disorganized resistance or insurgency. A lose confederacy of bloggers and youtubers who are comparing notes about the world around them. Anyone that want's to organize the men's movement into a political one is free to try but they will never get my support. In fact I fully expect and I am already seeing attempts to co-opt what it means to be an MRA or a MGTOW. No problem there either. When the terms get hijacked I will just redefine myself accordingly.

9:36 AM  
Anonymous forweg said...

The problem is that some of these factions are forming the same amount of hatred for each other as they are the common enemy - feminism. To the degree that cooperation between factions is not possible.

Yes, you could say cooperation isn't necessary and each could combat feminism in his own way. But even that can differ. For instance, is abortion an anti-feminist issue?

8:10 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

What's happening is that the non-feminist world, in all of it hateful chaos, is reasserting itself. Nothing new here; it's as old as history.

But the world under the feminist regime is worse, so ANY world without feminism in it will most certainly be an improvement.

Abortion? Plenty of people will wrangle about that issue, with or without the presence of feminism. Fine, let them wrangle.

Utopian I am not. I don't care about creating any kind of a perfect world. I just want to drive feminism out of existence, or at least into a corner where it can't do any harm.

8:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

personally, I see a lot of ... let's say not-feminist or anti-feminist material on youtube, and other websites... much of it, especially on youtube, is a little casual, long on ranting, repetitious, complaint echoing.

I appreciate the numbers. But I hear so much crap feed seems like daily, I listen in particular to NPR, great station overall, but not a week passes and somehow there is a feminist angle that passes right in front of all that I'm sure most miss, or even more blatant stuff, interviews with feminists, today, they were talking about how young career women need to cultivate relationships with 'beta males', who are supportive, then this crapayune shit about how sexy it is for a man to run a vacuum... so it's sexy to be 'beta', and if you do any housework, guess what, you didn't know but you're beta not just a guy who happens to clean up sometimes, and it's good go be a beta - males are either alpha or beta, and you should be happy to be 'beta', you know, where the view never changes in sled dog terms - but you get a little feminist approved pat on the head. all very laughingly presented, oh let's just discuss males in this way - it's not sexism if it's about men - this is BBC incidentally... two weeks before, frank stasio interviews department head of Duke u. 'women's studies', ugh, and the condescending shiite she pulled out of her butt, she just wants to hug young angry males who don't understand feminism (read mra), stasio incidentally offers no evidence of critical thought on this, only hem kissing, and , well, etc. etc., and i listen to the youtube rants and it's another seven minutes here, fifteen minutes there, hashing over the same, albeit, pertinent, but fully covered typical realizations that, hmm, this is kind of a shit deal for me, in a verbose way... it's boring... oh wait, what was my point... well that's kind of it really. i agree, not only a cacaphony, but out of tune cacaphony of complaining, unfortunate echo of the female victim statusing, and on an on. all the while, feminists seem to be forging ahead, grasping for the limelight, always a new set of talking points, some new and clever to 'float' all the time. "did you know there's to much testosterone in the world" what the fuck is that supposed to lead me to deduce - if only there were some sort of solution to that?

there needs to be widespread and public slapping down of all this floating crap as it rises. when people here the little lecture on how you ought to be a beta today, do they realize the same beatches are working toward some sort of government enforced allocation of household chores in the UK? do they know THAT?

ahhh... shit floats great apparently, but unpleasant melodies don't linger.

ah. fidelbogen, i'm looking for you to fix all this, i'm too goddamn over it.

8:56 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Right. There needs to be a general "slapping down", as you have said.

For that to happen, an organized network, for the purpose, must be established. . .

9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

such that... like a net, not so easy for stuff to slip by on a major media... the fems have a huge advantage in that they are generally embraced, while any sort of anti feminist attitude can be called out merely for being nothing other than that, of course then attaching to it all sorts of other things. i have the feeling that they actually do have all kinds of network, like they're at war or something with all kinds of under the surface communication channels, and yet, they don't actually need them. public slap. what's needed, as a policy, expect it, say something asinine, public slap. what kills me is the folks, like conservative fox news commentators, who even openly speak against feminists, really aren't very pithy, with rush, soon as he starts saying feminazis, people write it off as oh that rush, bill o'reilly, somehow, he's not really serious about it, not intellectual. why?

what kind of network, wonder how that would work... part of problem, only so much time in a day, maybe that's why so many people get on youtube and just go off for half an hour without a script. me, i admit, i don't have the guts, i don't know i want the world to see me, certainly not in a state of unexamined verbosity. i sometimes muse whether some of these people, become in a sense, more popular, locally, due to this type of thing, or less, having their face on youtube in a series of lengthy diatribes, or just rants or whatever, some sort of extroversion that everyone doesn't just have. with, say, lady gaga, the same thing might be called 'star power', in most folks, it's only a twinkle, little dully lit cloud ah blah blah blah. see, you can't seem me. there's comfort in that here.

keep up the excellent work fidelbogen, i am much faster on the draw, conversationally re feminism than used to be, but still working on it. one needs to do one's thinking in advance, mostly anyway, and there's so much bullshit web that needs to be thought about, they've supplied... no wonder they like harry potter so much. rant over. i prefer westerns, or o henry. or poe. anybody noticed they love to say poe was a womanhater? presumably because some of the characters in his stories who met their demise were women, i guess? of course, there's also a story where a cat gets killed, maybe that was the clincher. ha ha. or that he dutifully married his young cousin... whatever, he's dead, they like to attack a dead man. what's more morbid. besides, i always got the opposite impression, women were central to him, and he didn't hate them.

7:26 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home