Monthly Archives: August 2015

The conspiracy of “MGTOW’s subversion”

To those who think that MGTOW can be “inflitrated” or “coopted” or “subverted” I ask the following question: since when did the observation that fewer and fewer men are engaging in relationships with women for the purpose of reducing a vector of risk from state interference become some organization or club that can be attacked?  And for what purpose? To induce men into becoming vulnerable to State attack by getting them to marry?

Think about it.

The following is an extract that I think might shed a bit of light on the issue.

In “Subversion of Social Movements by Adversarial Agents”  Eric L. Nelson outlines “thirteen suppressive or subversive methods” to bring about “social movement failure.” Failures are classified as either “petit” or “complete,” depending on whether the targeted movement or organization is merely demoralized and shaken up, or completely “brought down.”

The methods, each of them explained and illustrated, are:

1) Suppress Information Flow;

2) Suppress Recruiting Efforts;

3) Reduce Recruiting Opportunities

4) Develop Attractive Alternatives;

5) Tempt Members to Leave;

6) Reverse Recruiting Using Demoralizing Information;

7) Operationalize Secure/Faux Concessions;

8) Expertly Directed, Incessant Proactive Manipulation of Media;

9) Resource Depletion;

10) Stigmatization;

11) Divisive Disruption;

12) Intimidation; and

13) Intrapsychic Wounding.

The article ends with the following (abbreviated for this post) conclusion.

“Thirteen tested and theoretical methods of subversion reviewed here were designed to induce petit or grand failure into targeted social movements. History demonstrates that in the laboratory of real life multiple methods of subversion are generally deployed sequentially and concurrently, in accordance with the tactical strategy developed by adversarial agents specific to a targeted social movement.”

Too many people are conflating simple disagreement and very sloppy thinking of a very sloppy term with some sort of social conspiracy.

C’mon guys. Focus on what is important: your control over your life, and helping other men effectively deal with the currently hostile legal and cultural environment so that we can live the best life that we can, regardless of the current state of the world.

Tagged ,

How to Know Thyself

I believe that one of the biggest problems that people face, in terms of our personal selves is that we too often get lost in a means goal, and not going straight for the end goal.

A means goal is a path to an end goal. We get lost in “I need to drive to the next city” and not “I need to get to the next city.” What happens if the car is broken? Or the roads closed? Then we must do battle to focus on making the car go from A to Z, and we fail to consider other alternatives. Having someone drive us, the bus, the train, airplanes, boats.

Then again, is getting to the next city even the goal? Or is it also a means goal? Perhaps it is, to spend time with loved ones. That would be an end goal. Perhaps it is not, but to have an interview, to get a job, do pay the bills. What if paying the bills is really the end goal? Makes focusing on driving seem silly, doesn’t it?

Example: “I believe that promoting X makes me a good person.”

Promoting the idea is a means goal, “being a good person” would be the end goal. It is my experience that when we directly work on being a good person, that we get tangible results sooner, because we focus on the elements of the goal: what are the criteria that I can measure that will allow me to ascertain whether I am in fact, a good person?

When we do this, we often realize that the means goal would not have gotten us to where we want to be, or that there are better, simpler, quicker and less energy intensive ways of getting to that goal.

I’ve often had difficulty with the concept of “know thyself.”

The answer, it turns out is simple: know your needs, your goals, your strengths, weaknesses, habits and preferences.

If you know your needs, you’ll know your goals. If you know your goals, you can evaluate what strengths or weaknesses, habits and preferences bear on the achieving the goal.

When you know these things, and put them all in order, life becomes much simpler and more pleasant.

Tagged

Crazy lives on both sides of the fence

Crazy lives on both sides of the fence. Guess which side you're on.

Crazy lives on both sides of the fence. Guess which side you’re on.

Tagged

An example of how Feminist behaviour is driven by pain

The discussion of Men’s Rights is on the rise, these days, I’ve been engaging in them. I have long claimed that many people cleave to an ideology as a measure to deal with their pain.

Objectifying others, demonizing them, lying about them, some think, is some sort of solution to making the world work in their favour.

I don’t accept that, and have found that genuine listening, empathy and honesty works far better.

I present a conversation that I’ve had today with Annabel Pfeiffer. You’ll note that none of her replies to me show up in the comment thread. The reason? She blocked me. This, by the way, is why I quote when I reply. One may block me, or attempt to alter comments, or to hide them. I see no point to it, and when possible, hold people responsible for them.

Is this the behaviour of well-adjusted people trying to make the world a better place, or is it the behaviour of someone in pain?

This was the video that I listened to (but did not participate in)


heike anderson

Yesterday 11:52 PM
Arcane being his usual self, once again, thinking forced pregnancy is a ok with him. Thank goodness he and his ilk aren’t in control. Always a group of men discussing what women should be able to do with their bodies. Another person comes (man)  in and pulls the old, women sleeping around bullshit card. Like that’s the only demographic that chooses elective termination, he’s wrong.

Francis Roy

 2:58 AM+heike anderson “Always a group of men discussing what women should be able to do with their bodies.”

This is along the same lines of “Always a group of women discussing how men should behave.”

If you aren’t looking at all sides, you aren’t looking at all.

That having been said, I’m responding to the comment, not to the 8 hour video.

heike anderson

 6:10 AM +Francis Roy
Are you anti choice, or do you agree with Arcane and his idea of forced pregnancy?

12:24 PM+heike anderson “Are you anti choice, or do you agree with Arcane and his idea of forced pregnancy?”

I don’t know what “anti-choice” means, in this instance. I haven’t listened to the video.I don’t agree with forcing anyone to be pregnant, or not. I imagine that our last conversation would have clarified that point.

While I think that I understand what you mean when you ask “are you…” I would encourage people to consider using more accurate language, such as “do you support X position.” I think that when one says “I do, I think, I believe” rather than “I am” we question our changeable doings, rather than an imagined and personalized state of immutable being.

That having been said, what I was pointing out is that men and women, women and men, men and men, women and women have been telling each other what “the right way” to live or do things has been going on since the dawn of our species. I consider it unwise to simply point out 1 of the 4 options as though it’s a complete truth.

Francis Roy

3:42 PM +Annabel Pfeiffer “I think you’ll find that men have not just been telling women what to do and how to do it since the dawn of time but have also up until the last century had control of what women did…”

This is a one-sided interpretation of history, viewed though the lens of women’s oppression. It ignores that men have controlled men, men have controlled women, women have controlled men, and women have controlled women. More than anything else, for as long as we have been building cities larger than tribes, it has usually been a matter of class, whether the class be based on religion, or some form of nobility, or aristocracy, or control of resources.

“to deny such would display an incredible amount of dishonesty…”

Your presumption that someone who disagrees with your limited point of view must be dishonest is rather presumptuous, and I might go so far as to say self- deceiving. You do understand that the real world is far more complicated than one little idea, don’t you? I can appreciate the convenience and self-satisfaction of thinking that one idea pegs reality, thus, one can feel more secure in their beliefs and assertions, but this is a self-imposed trap. It leads one to make silly statements such as the one that I’m responding to, and one which, by the way, will not endear you to your interlocutor, or facilitate genuine conversation, listening, learning or empathy and compassion.

Francis Roy

 5:51 PM +Annabel Pfeiffer 1. “As a woman whose Grandmother was committed to a mental asylum her entire life by her husband for Post natal depression..he divorced her and still had control over when she came out…a mother who was beaten by my father on a monthly basis and a victim of child abuse ..”

I accept that your grandmother hard a hard life. My father was born in a concentration camp, and his mother abused him, and he transferred his abuse to me. I feel for you. That’s life and it has nothing to do with the conversation, other than to prove that all humans experience hardship, and that these issues should be resolved, in an impartial and fair manner.

2. “I  am going to end this conversation now because I will not allow some misogynistic woman hater to rewrite history himself because he’s a failure at life and blames women for his inability to be successful.. “

Then you are ending the conversation because of presumption. I am not a misogynist. I do not hate women. I have no intention of re-writing history. I do not blame women for anything other than for individual’s actions. And my life is successful.

/me throw away the shame sandwich that you attempted to foist upon me.

You repeat a common pattern: when faced between being open minded, honest, and demonstrating empathy, you allow your emotions, your ideology, your misconceptions to serve as excuses to seem to legitimate your rudeness and to speak ignorantly to a complete stranger.

Calling me names, demonstrating rudeness and presumption does not make your point of view correct. It does not take away your pain. It does not help you grow. It does not make a better world. Not for men. Not for women. Not for me. Not for you.


Tagged , , ,