It is common knowledge that any activist and social movement that challenge the Power-that-be and its status quo will be infiltrated with one main objective--to fizzle it. And that is not a conspiracy theory or hyperbole--no, that is a common practice, that is the norm; and this is not at all a difficult thing to do. The Power-that-be knows that cohesiveness, harmony and unity among the members of any movement are indispensable and fundamental. As it is often said, it is the glue that binds them together. It is, then, imperative to this Power to prevent it. The movement(s) is infiltrated by agent provocateurs, and the list of tactics these agents employ to prevent this cohesiveness, this harmony, this unity and ultimately to derail is long, but it is neither of much sophistication, nor new, and it does not need to be. They are essentially the same old traditional stuff that most of us are already familiar with and which has served them well with relative ease. For this reason, I have neither intention nor desire to enumerate each and every one of those tactics nor it is my intention either to pretend to know who those agents provocateurs may be. Agent provocateurs can be anyone--that you and I do know. So it would not be unreasonable to infer, with a considerable degree of certainty, that the MRA/MHRA and even MGTOW have been infiltrated; and this inference does not require one to be highly intelligent or an expert on logistic of any sort. All it requires is for one to be an alert observer. I have been hearing things and seeing things which seem to support this inference. So the intent for writing this article is to [remind] you of this more-than-likely possibility and, hopefully, to raise the level of alertness and the exercise of reasonable caution. Everything that is said, every suggestion, every proposition, every comment, racial slurs, pejoratives, any set of political or philosophical ideas--from ANYONE--must be dutifully examined, evaluated, dissected, questioned and even challenged if need be. This is extremely essential, but it must fall in line with what it is considered a healthy dose of skepticism. We should not allow ourselves to become unreasonably suspicious, mistrust everything and everybody and zealously rush to judgment; for this also could be used as a weapon to create division by those agents who seek to derail the movement. It is perfectly ok to be angry--goodness knows we have plenty of reasons to be--but anger must be kept in check and channeled in positive and constructive ways. It is extremely important to be rational in order to tamp down our emotions. We must not take leaps beyond what is logical. We must not become paranoid either. After all, we always can recognize the White-Tailed fox by its own tail. And a fox will always be a fox no matter what else it tries to be or pretends to be. I will suggest to spend a few minutes and watch this videos. Perhaps nothing in its content is new to you but it might help you to be alert.
About females in the MRA
As the movement steadily grows and gains popular support, the number of women who identify themselves, or claim to identify themselves with and support the MRA, is also growing. While their adherence to the movement seem to be welcomed and largely accepted by many--if not most--MRA activists and MRA enthusiasts, others however, I have observed, have not been so keen on their presence and see it as just another female intrusion. It has, as any alert observer would expect, raised some concern and many questions amongst some MRAs and sympathizers; and many of the criticism they have dished out have not been exactly favorable.
A salient criticism, for instance, stems from the observation that some of those women are garnering far more subscribers to their channels and "like" hits to their videos than some of the most noticeable activists in the movement and excellent contributors outside of it, by simply regurgitating--in somewhat different wordings but essentially the same thing--that long time advocates such as Paul Elam (AVoiceformen.com's founder), JTO, Barbarossaaa, RazorBladeKandy, Startdusk, Man Woman & Myth, Red0660 and many others have been so eloquently saying and preaching long before those women came to the scene. In the comment section of a MRA's channel an individual, who have notice the disparity, expressed what it seems to be a disappointment, disillusion or frustration and another individual replied to his comment with a flippant remark: "you're just suffering from subscriber-envy." I would like to believe that the MRA is not and should never become--I hope--a popularity contest and individual accolade; for that is not only counterproductive, but also an opportunity to seize upon by agent provocateurs to create and fuel quarrel. However, if those concern and criticisms are valid--and in my own opinion they are--then that is not something that should be dismissed simply as an inconsequential triviality or be dealt with reductive fallacy.
In an exchange I had with a MRA I was made aware of one particular woman who identifies herself as either a MRA or a MRA supporter and who, in the relative short time she has been on YT, she has managed to garner an interesting high number of subscribers. I did visit her channel and looked up the numbers, and I was not impressed but rather somewhat alarmed. She has 22,000+ subscribers--far more than a few of those noticeable activists' combined number of subscribers. I am fully aware that by pointing out this fact I am risking being accused of attempting to stir up controversy--precisely one of the thing I am trying to warn us all about. This is a catch-22 paradoxical situation, but I feel the need to address certain points in relation to it. Perhaps none of those well-known activists may be concerned with those numbers; and even if they did there is nothing they can do about it anyways. They probably couldn't care less and that may be ok, too. In fact, they might even think that is all beneficial to the MRA. But really, is it? [If] that is their position, I could, more or less, guess what their argument to defend their position would be.
But what exactly those high numbers represent? What do they tell us? I cannot help it but to wonder. Do those high numbers mean that woman understands and articulates the hurt and concerns of men and boys better than those high profile activists? No doubt her arguments and critiques of feminism as a social ill are solid and of merit, but is any of her arguments put forth more solid and far more compelling than Mr. Elam's, for example, or Barbarossaaa's, or JTO's, or Man, Woman & Myth's, or RazorBladeKandy's, or Red0660's, or AngryHarry's? Does this woman, or any other woman in the MRA, understand the plight of men and boys in this misandrist culture better than those men and thus worthy of deserving the most recognition and accolade? No? Well, is she more likable? Is it a matter of message delivering style and personal charm? Am I supposed to reason that those women have the best interest of men and boys at heart more so than those men mentioned above? Or is it a matter of pussy vs. dick? Could perhaps those numbers be telling us of a possible biological predetermined innate pattern of behavior of men in the mere presence of a female? To some it may appear that I am critical of this woman but no, it is not per say about her. I do not know her and know nothing about her. I have no beef or bone or axe to grind with her. I am simply wondering if those number may be all part of a strategic move of agent provocateurs inside the MRA (or its enemies working from the outside) attempting to stir up animosity and quarrel amongst MRA activist and followers by, in a very calculated move, choosing to favor a woman over those men; and this is above all else my true concern. I believe one or two of her videos have been requested by a couple of learning institutions, but as far as I know, none requested from any of those guys. This is all curious to me. This, in my opinion, must be taken into account at least for some consideration.
The contribution that some of these women are making to the struggle are remarkable and should not be ignored; but let us all be clear about one important fact. The MRA/MHRA, MGTOW and the like were formed by sick and tired pissed off men who many of them were, in some form and to some degree or another, victims themselves and finally decided to take the red pill and made a conscious decision to voice loudly and without fear the hurts, pain and concerns of men and boys; which before them nobody else cared to do, and which NOBODY, in my opinion, can do it better than the men themselves.
As I said earlier, there are men who are not thrilled with the presence of these women in the [Men's] Rights Movement; and their reasons and arguments for their position are various. For instance, one individual points out that many of these women who, although never fully or wholeheartedly embraced feminism, yet were indelibly silent and enjoying many of the privilege handed out to women for no other reason than being women thanks to feminism--while men and boys were/are discriminated against and marginalized. They now can see that the cat is out of the bag and they [probably] are now trying to garner favor with men, particularly with MRAs. And here are some of the questions that keep popping up amongst MRAs:
"Do we really need females MRAs?" "Why?" "Is it ultimately a good idea?" "Are those women really our allies, or are they feminists who have infiltrated the MRA to soften its blows?" "Despite their awareness of the raw deal men and boys are getting in our society today, would their hypergamous nature allow them to be impartial to men's and boys' interest?" "Aren't all women hypergamous?" "Don't all women look out for their own self-interest?" "If generally they do--as many or most MRAs have consistently argued and agreed upon--are the females in the MRA uniquely the exception to the rule?"
Those questions seem to reflect valid and reasonable concerns and should not be dismissed as meaningless male petulant whining or glossed over with oversimplification arguments. Perhaps they feel that the MRA is headed to a destination they do not want to go to and should not go to. Surely, there are many women who really get it and earnestly understand and have empathy for men's predicament. Those women, too, have seen feminism wreaking havoc in our society. They have seen the pernicious emasculation, the spiritual and mental castration of men and boys, largely tolerated discrimination, marginalization and vivisection of men and boys in this feminist-misandristic culture. But do they need to join men's movement? They could form an all-female front and combat--on their own--feminism and all of its ill. Why have not they done it? Despite that we, men and women, have fundamental differences both biological and in many cases philosophical, most activists believe that female MRAs are an asset to the movement. I will not comment on that, I will simply keep on listening and watching. I read or heard someone saying: "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." I couldn't agree more.
Gurus know best
There are those who seem to know--or believe to know best--what approach is best to fight feminism. They are trying to prescribe a set of philosophical and political ideas they presuppose are or could be workable strategies in this MRA vs. feminism ongoing conflict. Some of them, I have observed, seem preoccupied with projecting a good image. One prerequisite step to help this image is to tone down the anti-feminist rhetoric. Other element components of this prescription is what is strategically preferable to call ourselves, what topics should be for discussion amongst MRAs and which one should not. The prescription calls for us to project some sort of well-mannered, kumbayah, civil, non-confrontational, non-radical, non-threatening cavalier group of men who love and welcome everyone, and carefully tailor our vocabulary because we wholeheartedly wish to insult and anger no one or to turn off potential members. Moreover, it has been suggested by some of these gurus that we should stop discussing anything related to Hypergamy. I disagree. I think any issue or topic should be for discussion as it relates to feminism, women's nature, and men's predicament in this current state of affair; and any option--except violence--should be on the table for at least some consideration; whether the subject in discussion is about feminists' hyper sense of entitlement, or female hypo-agency, or the hypergamous nature of women. If the hypergamous nature of women has been politicized--and we know it has been--then I do not see why we should turn away from discussing it whenever there is a call for it. There are many men who are not aware of this female nature and that this, in many instances, has been the source of their troubles.
Let me remind these gurus--in case they have forgotten--that feminists really do not give a shit what kind of image we might want, try or wish to project; so any attempt at any such a thing is futile. You see, the very notion of a "Men's Rights Movement" is looked upon by feminists, their lapdogs, and main stream media as totally absurd and a joke. According to them, we are living in a "Patriarchal" system, so what could possibly men need to complain about--right? Feminists have already formulated a gruesome image of men which they use as a ruse to justify and carry out their malign gynocentric agenda. According to these wicked and virago ideologues, men--no exception--are inherently evil, villains, women oppressors, rapists (it does not matter if you never raped anyone), misogynists and, in summary, a bunch of poorly developed subhuman that should not have any kind of rights. Yes, I do vehemently agree we must be rational and coolheaded, and we should channel our anger and energy into positive doings, but we should not give a flying fuck about how feminists albatrosses see us. So I will say to those gurus, you pick your own approach of how to fight feminism, but please, spare the rest of us the lecturing about tone and a soft and pussyfied image.
It has been suggested also that we should call ourselves "Non-feminist" in lieu of "Anti-feminist," and that we need to become "Ambient." (??!!) Is it this supposed to work as some sort of a strategic weapon that will deliver a major blow to feminism? Will this somehow confuse and dupe feminists? If someone would say to me that he is, for instance, a "Non-fascist" it is not clear to me what his view and position on fascism is. The title does not explain whether or not he is an outside fascism sympathizer, against it, or simply indifferent to it. But from the very moment he begins to speak out and write against it, in the eyes of everyone--particularly in the eyes of fascists--he is an "Anti-fascism"; and it makes no difference whether he embraces the title or rejects it. And there is no escape from it. If you are not Anti-feminism, why do you so passionately write and speak [against] it? Look, if feminism has infiltrated and destroyed--or at best made mediocre--the military of just about every western nation, has subverted even the church, capriciously shut down worthy men's and boys' sport teams at high school and college level (and now threatening men pro sports), has revised and shamelessly distorted history to claim credit for accomplishment they never did, has distorted news reporting, statistical reports, committed fraud, has turned mediocre most learning institution, the entertainment industry, has destroyed families, has turned bias our institutions of Law by ferociously and aggressively imposing their bizarre worldview, capricious codswallop and slate grievances, then damn right I am Anti-feminist!!!
Lately there have been an increasing number of people who [pose] as MRAs, or who may very well be MRAs, who spare no effort to slander and chastise those of us who are less willing to waltz in and project a more friendly, less radical and less confrontational image and put up with all the nonsense coming from vipers and their sockpuppets who brand themselves as feminists. They charge us with being "hostile," "disrespectful," "loud-mouth," "potty-mouthed" and so on. They claim--using different circumlocution--that our mouth and attitude could place the MRA in great peril in this MRA vs. feminism ongoing war. So they try to wring our hands and sermonize to us about how our tones convey unhelpful messages which inevitably shut the door to "reasonable discourse." As I see it, those individuals are trolls (and maybe they mean well) acting as self-appointed missionaries preaching the gospel of civil discourse. But they must understand that reasonable discourse does not work with unreasonable and acrid people like feminists. Feminists ARE NOT and never were interested in reason and civil discourse; for if they were, we would not be in this mess.
There is no special dispensation in the world of ideologies--particularly if they are irrational ideologies. If irrational ideologies are bad ideas--and by definition they are--particularly when those bad ideas become the fundamental element in a widespread agenda of the ideologues--then I think we have the right to challenge, call them out and fight them in any way we deem necessary and offer
apology to no one. We must be diligent and not allow the MRA to become a doctrinal and dogmatic cult with useless philosophical ideas and ritualized set of can-dos and cannot-dos, can-says and cannot-says. We must remember that the objective of the Power-that-be is not necessarily to completely obliterate a movement--that is rarely the case--and they do not need to. The provocateur operatives infiltrate the movement, and by neutralizing the movement it make it ineffective. The movement then simply evolves--like the NAACP, for example--into an inert and irrelevant relic; then all it will be left of it is a meaningless acronym.