Let’s Stop Trying to Fix the Unfixable
Would you buy a car that never worked? If the salesman and mechanic explained that it is the best-designed car on the market, it’s just that a few kinks have to be ironed out, would you buy it? Would you go to a surgeon who had never performed a successful surgery? Would you go to a doctor who had never treated your type of illness? Then why tote a form of government that has never worked?
The defenders of our republic, Constitution, and democracy offer an infinite number of reasons why it doesn’t work. The following were two in response to my last article: “The emasculation of the American male was done through feminist lies, news media lies and incompetence, and judicial activism. A lot of that was both unconstitutional and undemocratic.” “The lawmakers and judges in particular have failed the Constitution. Lawmakers pass laws contrary to the constitution. Judges interpret the constitution any way they please, contrary to the intent of the constitution.” If lawmakers and judges can’t make the Constitution work, who can?
Our conditioning through the educational systems causes us to “believe” that democracy and a representative form of government is the best system, but it has never worked anywhere. The ancient Greeks tried it for a short time and got rid of it. Plato considered it to be the worst form of government before complete tyranny set in. Madison, Jefferson, and Adams all regretted what they had created. De Tocqueville wrote about the failings of democracy in 19th century America, and MND offers an unlimited source of those who make excuses for the failure of democracy.
I offer you Patriarchy. It has worked everywhere! In North American, South America, Africa, Polynesia, and Asia. It has worked for millennia. For the Bible toters, are you not familiar with the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph? Their society was patriarchal, and polygamous as well.
The make up of the central government becomes inconsequential when patriarchy is firmly entrenched. Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and the Indian Satraps, all came and went without affecting family life. Patriarchy is an insulator of family life. Patriarchy is the rule of men. The only other choice is the rule of law. I opt for the rule of men any time. The rule of men results in the establishment of family life: the source of our character development, the center of nurturing, and focus of our daily activities.
Those men who are sitting in prison because of unjust accusations of rape or sexual harassment are not interested in some excuse as to why democracy hasn’t worked. They want out. Those men who have lost custody of their children are not interested in tinkering with something that caused their loss. They want their children back. Those men who have seen the destruction of all that they lived and worked for through “no fault divorce” are not interested in a dissertation of representative government. Those men who are on probation, who are facing prison, whose lives are in shambles want the hope of something better than that which caused their problems.
We live under socialism that is rapidly devolving into tyranny. I am looking for men—real men to stand up and make change. To be counted. To say that they have had enough, that they have nothing to lose, and that they have everything to gain to make change. I am looking for men who are tired of being classified as wage earners, industrial donkeys, and jackasses on the treadmill of production. I am looking for men who want to reassert their manhood. I am looking for men who are ready to stand up and shout I AM A MAN, I AM A REAL MAN.
Enough with the naysayers and excuse makers, I am looking for men of action. Let me have your comments or contact me at www.mensaction.net. Now is the time to assert yourself.
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
“Post 1950’s feminist propaganda has in effect psychologically castrated most males to the degree they connot summon the courage to act even in the most benign capacity!!”
I agree. And a perfect example:
“When a man’s moral code is ridiculous, he tries to impose that ridiculousness onto others.”
If what E.G. does is seen by a man as “imposing” onto others than that man is not really a man. A real man makes his own decisions and has control of his own life and he knows it. He does not see what another man says as an imposing force since he has control of his own life. E.G. may be trying to influence. He may be trying to sway. He may be trying to convince. But to be influenced, to be swayed, to be convinced, a real man has to allow it. That is why E.G. message is not the issue here. The real issue is the display here of weak “men” (or those masquerading as such).
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:45 am
Roger Knight – “What makes a lick of sense is enough people getting disgusted to do something about it. Then we will have action whether we want it or not!”
That’s Elder’s message! Gather up the people who BOTH (a) are upset enough to do something about it, and (b) have a solid enough moral foundation, coupled with a strong appreciation of their own masculinity – then allow them to form two plans: their own individual plans of action, and the collective, organizational plan of action.
When people are (a) but NOT (b) – they end up working against themselves. Some variations of this are: (1) Want the problem fixed, but want everybody else to do the work for them, at minimal cost to themselves. (2) Want the problem fixed, but cannot dismiss and stupid and unhealthy demands. (3) Want the problem fixed, but only if they play the superstar role, and are very ehavily noticed for what they do. (4) Secretly don’t want the problem fixed, but sure like the attention and espect which comes from loudly identifying the problem.
There is simply no way for any of those four movements to be as effective as one which requires strong masculinity in all of its members.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 am
I must agree with conservativation.
David U., I am very saddened to see you resorting to scare-tactics to dis-hearten EG’s readership.
To restrict comments on your own articles and then come here to bash someone else’s ideas and writings is unacceptable in any public forum. Whether you agree or not with EG’s writings, publicly accusing someone of recruiting terrorists is …. well I don’t even have words for it.
David, instead of criticizing EG’s works (particularly this article) maybe you should take it to heart. You’ve been banging your hand on some table or another for a long time now. How much progress have you really made in all these years?
Mike, your questioning EG’s writings / mission is understandable. You have this site to worry about.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:38 am
Mike LaSalle – “However – whether or not the allegation is fair, I would like EG to make a plain policy statement renouncing violence — or any other illegal or anti-social behavior.”
So if I can drag up a paranoid schizophrenic to accuse you of something entirely ridiculous, by your own standards, you have the responsibility to prove that you’re not guilty, even though the accusation is ridiculous?
When a man’s moral code is ridiculous, he tries to impose that ridiculousness onto others. Feminists are morons, so they try to make people cower before their stupidity. What makes an MRA exempt?
The only propoer response against ridiculous demands is to ignore them.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
denis..talk, talk, talk..well said!!
It is about individual men getting the courage to do individual acts (maybee in unison with others) that are going to help innitiate change.
Post 1950’s feminist propaganda has in effect psychologically castrated most males to the degree they connot summon the courage to act even in the most benign capacity!!
E.G. does have a metaphysical message that does encourage men to be men!!
If the churches have failed us, and no longer has a message for men, then where are we to go!!
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 am
Infidel-
With respect to EG I was not talking specifically about him nor his message. I was speaking generally. All this girl-talk going on about what E.G. means or does not mean is a big waste of time. Once you resolve your latest issue what’s next? Nothing. It isn’t about being led or misled. If people don’t like his message they are supposedly big boys who can make their own decisions. My point is that none of you guys will ever DO anything yourselves. All you want is a pen-pal here. You guys have nothing at all to bring to the movement except talk talk talk. That’s why I do not frequent MND nearly as much as I do. I doubt most viewers read through the pages of text many of you put down. Mike LaSAlle is a great guy and he has done a lot for the movement. Another big success story is Marc Rudov. Ray Blumhorst is a regular guy doing extraordinary things. When you get past this issue you will all look for another one. At that point it will be talk talk talk again. And most of it is not even original.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:10 am
I’ve gone down the rabbit hole and stayed it would seem. What began as a surprising but I suppose reasonable question about EG and violence, and perhaps even more clarification, has morphed into what would seem to a casual visitor to be the kinds of things written only on an Art Bell web blog. The NSA? Are you kidding me? That’s just bizarre and reflects badly on everyone who ever posts here. To even imagine that this tiny corner of the world is a concern to the security of the nation is, well, “Roswellesque”.
Then to extrapolate and suggest that the danger is so real that EG could be purged and blocked to keep the rest of our noses clean and avoid scandal would be hilarious if it weren’t serious.
These comments and suppositions are far more damaging to any credibility that may have been amassed by MRM folks than any article EG has written.
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 am
to Roger Knight,
I don’t make it complicated, I make it simple and that is the cause for some of the confusion. My focus is not on whose running for what office or which party has the better platform. That addresses the material and seen world. My focus is the man, the individual, and the unseen power within him. Once that is on track then the externals will change appropriately.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:04 am
This is all nice and metaphysical and philisophical, but I am looking for a plan of action that makes a lick of sense.
What makes a lick of sense is enough people getting disgusted to do something about it.
Then we will have action whether we want it or not!
The problem is that we are not quite there yet. Though the public reaction to the Dubai Ports deal, the nomination of weak sister shill for the increasingly corrupt Power Structure Harriet Myers instead of quality judges who believe that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race, and the recent explosion over the immigration issue gives me hope that we are getting there.
I prefer the Antipeonage Act as the mechanism to resolve our problems in family law. It is simple, easy to understand, makes a lick of sense, not difficult to explain to anyone, the enemy understands it right away without any explanation, and it is based on the Rule of Law. When enough people will get disgusted with our family law system and the other corrupt distortions of our constitutional system, the federal grand juries will run away and start indicting the tyrants in black robes and other tyrants for practicing peonage.
At least that is what I think will happen if we don’t keep the Antipeonage Act a secret.
Otherwise, the expression of disgust might be less pretty than grand juries doing their job.
Elder, I hear what you are saying, but as an engineer, I think you make it too complicated. The simple solution is for enough people to get too disgusted to continue going along with the BS. Then, like the signers of the Declaration with huge fortunes to lose, they will find their manhood.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
Mr. Usher – I do not wish to think this is where EG is going, but without some clarification of his apocalyptic view, there is no telling what he means.
“There’s no telling what he means” is a fair point. We can have a rational discussion if you use that as an opening remark.
“Because there’s no telling what he means, then he could mean violence” is a cheapshot. No rational discussion can be made over this one.
It’s sadly ironic how you decry false accusations when women make them, but you feel free to repeatedly and unapologetically use them in order to make people read your next blog.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 am
I would also like to point out the fact that it is men who are NOT involved with the MRM who end up lashing out and getting locked up for life.
I have never seen a man in a legitimate men’s group murder anyone or beat up a woman. We have a great track record keeping men from doing things that put them in prison. But this is not enough. If we are not here to end the one thing that brought us all here — the lack of marriage — we are simply wasting our time.
Despite the sterling track record of the movement, we still have to be careful. There are some very radical muslim elements trying to recruit men in America. At minimum, E.G. owes the movement a clear and candid statement on his position on violence. Silence, given the circumstances, is not a valid response.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 am
All,
In the 19 years I have been in this movement, I can say we have tried everything except running a marriage movement. Promise Keepers would have succeeded had its leadership not blamed men. From the political, economic, and social perspectives there is nothing to indicate we won’t win if we gear up for a real marriage movement. There are a lot of people in all sort of grassroots organizatons that will support this. The range of voters is quite wide, including just about everyone except the far left and the jaded.
This little movement has tried everything else — things that nobody outside this movement gives a damn about We have tried utomatic father custody, joint custody, protesting, litigation, pleading, crying, suicide, child support lockup protests, mythopoetic banging drums in the woods, going gay, swearing off marriage, hating women, dropping out of society entirely, court watching, writing letters, hoping Republicans would do what they said they would, attacking Republicans because they did the opposite of what they said they would, begging churches and religious leaders to get involved, leaving America, etc etc.
In the end, a man (you) are a respected member of society only if you are a married man. If you are sick and tired of not having this, you have to work to restore marriage. This means gearing up a full-blown, policy-based marriage movement.
My next article will speak to this in great detail, persuasively, and in terms that will sink in everywhere.
I have never seen a men’s group that advocates violence yet. I do know this: if it ever happens, this movement will be sent back to the very darkest ages for a long long time. I do not wish to think this is where EG is going, but without some clarification of his apocalyptic view, there is no telling what he means. To protect everything we have done in the past 20 years (we have come a long way), it is mandatory that all MRM leaders keep their noses so clean that even the nastiest feminist cannot find even one thing to bury them with.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 am
Mike… let the guy blog in peace. That’s all it is.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
amfortas – “You don’t add much to the discourse, as usual.”
Why don’t you explain why Usher is so damned concerned about this, while I’m not concerned at all?
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Again applying Brandenberg v. Ohio, there is no suspect speech.
Since Usher is like his grandmother. a predator posing as a house pet, his concerns are false, and Elder has no reason to ever answer to that man of ill-genetics, or any of his questions.
There is no need for one to clarify a position on a subject that they have not addressed, and from what I have read, will never have any NEED address.
It is clear from his work that Western Society has done all the violence it needs to do, to itself.
The naysayers and illegitimate bastard questioners are not just illogical, they are pathetic in the sense that they insert words and ideas into anything that makes them uncomfortable so they can hold a Witch Trial.
Pathetic. And you are supposed to be men I should Respect.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Yes, MMX, there are those who make that assumption and they are mostly all employed by various Government agencies. They use the rubric – If you’ve nothing to hide you won’t mind us inpecting your underpants. You don’t add much to the discourse, as usual.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Dittohd – Thank God you posted that “Secrecy doesn’t equal plans of violence.” I thought no one else would realize that anyone who makes that assumption is misguided and completely at fault for that assumption.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Good observations by Infidel #23.
I have already had my run-in with EG – as have you, Amfortas. It’s interesting to note that, since I put my discomfiture with EG’s obtuse philosophies out in the open, he has declined to address me directly. While I find this kind of passive-aggressive response puerile (and, yes, “petulant”), this alone is not sufficient for me to revoke his posting privileges on MND.
However – whether or not the allegation is fair, I would like EG to make a plain policy statement renouncing violence — or any other illegal or anti-social behavior.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
PS. I don’t personally agree with the Tailor solution either. Just thought I’d better make that clear. But the FMJ is very effective! I’d much prefer the Femonazis and their fellow-travelling Judicial and Legal Liars to implode and let us arraign them all with a new Legal framework. A Just one. Retributive and restorative.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
America has a wonderful history of seeking out and villifying dissidents. Joe MaCarthy wasn’t an aberration but rather an example of the sort of strong arm tactics that gave rise to the more insidious PC. I can understand David getting nervous and as for Mike, well, MND is clearly under surveillance. As are all of us who post here. I would not be at all surprised if my NSA file was fatter than the one held in Dzershinski Street.
But as yet I have not heard EG, bless his old patriarchal socks, propose violence.
But the Darren Macks of the world will grow and pose a significant and personal threat to the Legal and Judicial classes. These parasites rule and the Tailor will call on them. Darren of course would not be a follower of an old fashioned Patriarchy. The good old fashioned individualism of American men will find a different form.
David is the new Warrior. Many will not respond to his movement to re-establish Marriage as a focus, but it is a worthy one which could attract much support. Go for it David.
EG’s call upon men to show their masculinity assumes that there are many men around with some. But masculinity has many facets. David’s and EG’s are but two. Like commanders of independant battle formations both will have a part to play in any change. There is little point trying to rank the effectiveness of a number of different force types without considering the tasks set for them. ‘Special Forces’ small teams may be brilliant behind the lines but the tank battalion is what you throw at a large troop formation. Both have value determined by the opposition type.
I may not agree with the thrust of EG’s ‘Patriarchal’ call and I don’t think David’s marriage revolution will get far but, bit by bit, both may find effect on the multitude of battlefields we face.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Whoops! I didn’t turn off the italics after my quotation paragraph!
This website needs an edit button!
Let’s see if I can get it right this time:
To Infidel:
>We will however, get a lot of obfuscation (i.e. smoke) and evasion from him and/or his followers. That in itself will send the message that EG has not ruled out violence, and that in turn will attract the potentially violent to EG’s site.
It is common for companies and organizations not to divulge how they plan to accomplish their goals. It is also common to not even divulge specific goals. There are many legitimate reasons for doing this. In fact, my daughter in law had to sign a non-disclosure statement just to be a personal trainer for Gold’s Gym.
Secrecy does not equal plans of violence. Should we all assume that every time you keep something secret from your wife or girlfriend, you are planning violence?
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
To Infidel:
>We will however, get a lot of obfuscation (i.e. smoke) and evasion from him and/or his followers. That in itself will send the message that EG has not ruled out violence, and that in turn will attract the potentially violent to EG’s site.
It is common for companies and organizations not to divulge how they plan to accomplish their goals. It is also common to not even divulge specific goals. There are many legitimate reasons for doing this. In fact, my daughter in law had to sign a non-disclosure statement just to be a personal trainer for Gold’s Gym.
Secrecy does not equal plans of violence. Should we all assume that every time you keep something secret from your wife or girlfriend, you are planning violence?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
E.G. I agree with alot you have to say..But feel It can and must be changed within the framework that were given to work with!!
But its also clear that men have to pull their heads out of their arses..because the more men refuse to fight against the choking anti-male feminist juggernaut,,The tighter the noose gets around the next generation of boys!!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
nfidel said,
“CaptDMO (#22). Your wife-beating question is an obfuscation.”
My apologies.
Due to it’s well worn history, and usage as a classic example of the ridicule
associated with such phrases as “politically correct” I intended it as a retro-sarcastic preambleto imply my ridicule of your position following the entries before it.
Now, my addressing Mr. Usher with “Let me know when you’ve stopped taking notes for the NSA.” was intentional neo-obfuscation, admittedly, with the same intention cited above.
I apologize for any strictly literal or revisionist interpretation that may have transpired.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Denis (#16). Once again, an EGist asserts that non-EGists are not real men.
“Such males cannot be led.”
Perhaps we are not so easily MIS-led either.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re advocating either. If you mean we should pull together, okay. If you mean we should have a “secret society”, well maybe okay. If you mean insurrection, probably not.
As for my two cents on the rest, either you are a real man or you’re not. EG, I’m afraid you’re getting “followers” (like MMX) who have no clue what “real man” means. There’s a huge difference between a follower and a tag-along.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
CaptDMO (#22). Your wife-beating question is an obfuscation. I asked EG for clarification on his position on the issue of violence. I did not accuse him of carrying out violence at this time or in the past. Neither did I imply that he has done so. But your question implies that I am beating my wife. It’s not the same thing at all.
My position on wife-beating is that I am against it and I believe it is never justified.
I have clarified my position. Will EG clarify his?
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I predict that we will debate this for days and still not get a clear answer from EG. We will however, get a lot of obfuscation (i.e. smoke) and evasion from him and/or his followers. That in itself will send the message that EG has not ruled out violence, and that in turn will attract the potentially violent to EG’s site. In the absence of a clear statement rejecting the use of violence, this would appear to be what he wants.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
“I call on EG — and not any of his followers — to clarify his position on violence.”
WOW, You’re really not reading here are you?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet infidel?
I’m neither a “follower” of EG, I trust my previous posts have shown an exposure
to philosophy older than even EG, nor a “proven liar”, I have to ask you to
present you absolute tretise on freedom of speach.
David R. Usher said,
“All,
I would like to point out the fact that if I noticed this, and Mike LaSalle noticed this, then the NSA most certainly has noticed it too.”
Methinks you flatter yourself with FAR too much esteem. I cannot deny, however, an assumption that EVERY male in the US have fingerprints and DNA on file, usually based on even the SLIGHTEST accusation, (try to erase THAT bit of record keeping) and SOME sort of pretense of “criminal record” that will prohibit their freedom to bear arms, associate freely, nay-even SPEAK where some may take offense.
Let me know when you’ve stopped taking notes for the NSA.
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
George.
Nobody questions what you have written. There are some who wonder about what you haven’t written.
You are the only person I know in the movement who continually says that things are unfixable, and has never said what he intends to do about it once he has a bunch of guys on-board.
If you don’t want folks to imagine what you might be up to, you need to state the general framework of your plans in plain English. Please do not change the subject or shift the focus. You know exactly what I am talking about.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Violence? Do my eyes deceive me? Where in anything that I have written, on my website, in my mission statement, in my book, or in my information materials, is there anything that even hints at violence?
Speak up. Where is it?
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
I call on EG — and not any of his followers — to clarify his position on violence. Does he support it? If so, against whom and under what circumstances?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
MMX said: “Infidel – Why don’t you assume that, if Elder disagrees with anything I say, that he will publically refute my words?”
Because making assumptions is risky and because Elder is evasive.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
infidel – Why don’t you assume that, if Elder disagrees with anything I say, that he will publically refute my words?
————————————————-
Mr. Usher – “I would like to point out the fact that if I noticed this, and Mike LaSalle noticed this, then the NSA most certainly has noticed it too.” To which Dr. MMX would ironically reply, “So stop noticing that…”
Really. It does no bit of good to say, “Hugh Soundlika Terrorist!” or “Hugh Soundlika Communist!” It creates a fight where none need have been caused, based on a “Hugh Soundlika!” argument, which you promoted.
This is very much like hitting yourself with a hammer, and then yelling at the hammer.
———————————————————–
“Folks know my approach which is to pull together a large grassroots marriage movement comprised of all sorts of organizations whose work arises because of the destruction of marriage. None of these groups has the capacity to win by themselves. But when we all get on the same page, there will be political revolution in Washington.”
I’ve already hinted why these organizations will never be on the same page, but, whenever I propose my observations, not one comment is made towards them. I wish your movement well, Mr. Usher, but I don’t believe it can work. You still believe that people can unite and “ask the government’ for certain things, whereas I no longer believe that model.
“Now, do you intend to do?”
Asked and answered, by both of us.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“I am looking for men—real men to stand up and make change.”
It starts one man at a time who live accordingly. Men who live life on their terms alone. When a man walks into the room and the space is dominated by his presence that man is in charge. It’s in the ether. Everyone senses it. Everything we do in our daily lives is an expression of what kind of man we are or are not. Signals are always going out like a beacon. This type of man does not need a book to tell him how to be a man. He is. He does not need to explore “masculinity”. He knows it instinctively and lives it by default. He knows no other way. This man is already a leader and it begins with him taking charge of his own life entirely. To lead other men, the “other men” must possess some masculinity themselves. There needs to be a “receptor” in each of them. I have loosely followed the discussion here and my observation is that there are males who frequent this blog who lack such a receptor. Like women they are talkers. Not doers. Such males cannot be led. They must be left to fend for themselves. True men can only work with other true men. Those men who understand and follow are also known as men.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Besides, MMX, the archives show you are a proven liar so why should we believe you?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
MMX, give it a rest, please. We’d like to hear what EG says, not your portrayal of him. You are not EG. You are just acting like a smokescreen, promoting EGism yet at the same time we can’t really hear what EG himself is actually saying.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
EG said: “We can have our own marriage contracts that can take precedence over civil contracts.”
How do you propose to enforce our marriage contracts and make those of the government unenforcable?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
EG,
“holding their feet to the fire” can mean just about anything.
Folks know my approach which is to pull together a large grassroots marriage movement comprised of all sorts of organizations whose work arises because of the destruction of marriage. None of these groups has the capacity to win by themselves. But when we all get on the same page, there will be political revolution in Washington. It only took 4 days for a grassroots rebellion to force Bush to recall Harriett Meirs. When the New Marriage Movement pulls together, we will have this level of clout. There are many in the MRM who do not yet understand the importance of working from this platform. But my platform, and manyof the details, are out in public.
There will be a big pro-family/family preservation rally on the mall on August 18-19 http://www.dcrally2007.org. This is where I am going, and I will be speaking at it.
Now, do you intend to do?
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
All,
I would like to point out the fact that if I noticed this, and Mike LaSalle noticed this, then the NSA most certainly has noticed it too. We have to ensure the survival of this movement by keeping our core mission agenda out in the open. I raised this issue to keep this movement above board and out of trouble.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
To David,
I answered your question openly and clearly and did not use terminology like “holding their feet to the fire.” If you don’t get a sense of what I’m about now, then you don’t want to. I have no secret writings nor do I conduct secret meetings.
I gave you much more than any organization would give to a non-member.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Mr. Usher – “Everyone must understand the importance of leaders of the Men’s Movement being particularly clear about what their style of activism entails.”
You can’t pour old wine into new wineskins. If people want to use non-productive methods of understanding Elder’s message – like (a) NOT reading his book, or (b) NOT understanding that his message s brand new, and thus doesn’t conform itself to old rules of fighting – then their lack of understanding is their fault. In fact, it reads much like that lame joke, “Dr. MMX, it hurts like hell when I do this…” Dr MMX replies, “So don’t do that!”
My reply to Mike LaSalle was as clear as I could put it. But if he (or you!) insists that “we simply must” use old-style military / political tactics, then that’s both his choice ad a reflection of his inability to see what Elder’s message really says.
“Unfortunately, Radical Muslimism is a hyper-fraternal religious movement. There are a lot of very disaffected men in America and elsewhere. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the MRM could easily be painted or considered a terrorist movement.”
Oh no! Morons are going to judge us incorrectly! (Who could’ve predicted that morons make idiotic statements!?!) How am I going to make the morons understand that…..Hey…..wait a minute. I don’t have to cater to judgmental morons! It’s not my job! It’s not helpful!
“To this end, it is of manifold importance that everyone, including E.G., be transparent about what they intend to do.”
He’s always been transparent. I very recently explained his message in the Iconoclasm thread. Here’s a cut-and-paste.
—————————————————
Elder’s message isn’t a military cpmpaign. It’s instead a separating ground. Every reply here helps Elder, and everyone else, see whether the poster says YES or NO to the question, “Are you a man of action?”
If YES, then you have the potential to understand Elder’s message. If NO, then you don’t, and you’ll almost certainly try to bend Elder’s message to your old paradigm – which assumes that we should all unite in force to fight the enemy.
When you reveal yourself to be a man of action, and accept Elder’s message, you’ll be free to do whatever you wish! Because, once you accept that you’re a man of action, and accept that your actions must reflect your masculinity, then all of your actions will accomplish a higher purpose.
Thurston slugs it out in the courts, while I help my friends see the spirit world more quickly. Neither he nor I are “better than” each other, and neither he nor I have to decide which tactic “better defeats the enemy”. Because both of our actions reflect a higher spiritual purpose and our own masculinity, we can agree on Elder’s message without trying to force the other to “become a better soldier”.
—————————————-
“We have to go out of our way to keep our slate clean. If the MRM somehow becomes associated with terrorism, that is the end of the movement, period.”
No, it’s the end of American liberty. It’s the end of the illusion that American government is intelligent, benign, and enlightened. It’s also the end of old-school, “Let’s ask the government for help” tactics.
But it ain’t the end of the movement.
Heck, some would say that’s the beginning of the movement!
So, no. We really don’t have to “keep our slates clean” because morons will fill out the slates according to their own moronic standards. And a real man doesn’t live by moronism.
I still would like to know the framework of activism E.G. has in mind.”
Explained above.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
All,
Everyone must understand the importance of leaders of the Men’s Movement being particularly clear about what their style of activism entails. Unfortunately, Radical Muslimism is a hyper-fraternal religious movement. There are a lot of very disaffected men in America and elsewhere. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the MRM could easily be painted or considered a terrorist movement.
To this end, it is of manifold importance that everyone, including E.G., be transparent about what they intend to do.
We have to go out of our way to keep our slate clean. If the MRM somehow becomes associated with terrorism, that is the end of the movement, period.
I still would like to know the framework of activism E.G. has in mind.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Mike LaSalle – “With respect to EG’s “secret” action plan: If you have been following EG’s articles and the corresponding comments over the past few months, you are already aware that I also have questions about what exactly EG wants his followers to “do”.”
You’re making two assumptions, both of which are based off of American foreign policy over the last fifty years.
Assumption One – (military based leadership) – Elder is a leader, and we are his followers. He tells us what to do, and we do it.
The truth is that he coordinates his message, and makes sure that we are committed to its core idea – “That our masculinity is our own, that we have the duty to maximally exercise it, and that we must do so through our own actions – both collectively and individually.” So long as we’re committed to the core idea, it’s up to each of us to decide how we will act.
Assumption Two – (military based fighting) – Elder is the Commander-In-Chief who identifies the enemy target, and instructs us as to how to destroy it.
The truth is that there are many targets, some large and some small, all of which are important. Many of them are written down in his mission statement, but many more are present in each one of our individual lives. I have to make sure that the way I tutor my students is truthful to the core of the message, but Thurston doesnt – since he doesnt tutor any students.
This isn’t a classic military / political operation. There needs not necessarily be a “voting bloc”, “political action committees”, or whatever. This is brand new, so the old ways of fighting need not apply. In fact, holding on to classic ways of fighting only inhibits each of us from seeing the new ways of attack.
As Jesus said, “You cannot pour new wine into old wineskins.”
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I am traveling this week and am only checking in periodically.
With respect to EG’s “secret” action plan: If you have been following EG’s articles and the corresponding comments over the past few months, you are already aware that I also have questions about what exactly EG wants his followers to “do”.
EG is obviously quite sympathetic to Middle Eastern-style “Patriachy”, and has betrayed little sympathy for the simple wholesome values of Western Christianity.
Since EG has been quite cagey about his secret”action” plan, I will ask anyone who has gotten a better glimpse of what’s happening behind the wall to please send me an email and give me your opinions.
Mike
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I had this old shed, built by folks long before I came along.
Sometime after the concept of electricity in the home was popularised it got
electric lights. Much safer than whale oil lamps I guess.
Eventually, the carriage and tack that were kept in it became obsolete.
It seemed that EVERYBODY used automobiles.
Now those automobiles are taxed, with registration that’s taxed, using fuel that’s taxed, tires that are taxed with a fee to dispose of them, oil that is taxed with a tax to dispose of it when it’s no longer useful, all to drive on roads that are taxed, both on the spot and via state and federal “deductions” from a pay stub. Now the shed is taxed, and some folk want to ban me from changing the oil or maintaining the car in it.
Of course it requires maintenance. The old paint I scrape off has to go to “special” disposal for a fee. Sadly, I have to do this often as the best quality paint for wear and tear is banned. The old roof has to be disposed of with “special fees” involved.
If i decide to add an addition to it I have to pay fees to several different folk, with an increase in taxes on the “estimated” value.
I could just cut off the electric, stop repairing the roof, repainting the walls, and let
the weeds grow in and around it til’ it falls over. Of course, if a trespasser happens to enter upon it an falls through the floor I’m in financial trouble. I suspect it would take 50 or so years to succumb to nature on it’s own because it wasn’t built to “modern standards”. It’s already 200 years old and serves me well.
No, I suspect the only way to rid myself of this memorial to progressive bureaucratic
self promotion is to knock out it’s supports that rest on its foundation, push the construction debris to the side, and light it on fire. Some of the less offensive may be useful for the fireplace or stove, but still, it must be eliminated, otherwise, it’s hazard to my safety, just plain old “in the way” and obstructing progress.
I’m almost CERTAIN there’s something like that written into the Constitution by men who were well versed in history asthe culmination of the federalist papers
was presented.
I suppose we could all take a peek at our personal copies of the Declaration of Independence, but I fear that far too many of us went to public school after Horace Mann sneeked one by the useful idiot “progressive”liberals of his day.
Gibberish? No. Simply interpreting EG’s thesis into metaphor, and reminding those of Mr. Ushers ilk-
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
the tranquuility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you,
and may prosterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
“We are the between Generation of Men. We have no great War to fight, no great Depression. {We have the medeocrity of merely being.} Our War is a Spiritual War, our Great Depression is our Lives.” – Tyler Durdin – Fight Club
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
To David,
A fair question. I have a mission statement that describes the plans of Men’s Action; its on my website for all to see; however, I will give a few additional specifics.
Once the men step forward and decide they want change, one of the first things is to help them get in touch with their manhood, which society has worked all of their lives to suppress. Men have been severely beaten down. Empowering men is in itself a big step; it is the major step. Women are responsive and they react to stimuli and influences; if a man acts in a manly and assertive manner women will respond appropriately. There are millions of women out there waiting for real men to step into their lives. There will be many women supporters of Men’s Action. (They buy most of my books). In addition to this individual action there will be collective action.
We will have men’s activities and will challenge any one who attempts to interfere with this practice. We can have our own marriage contracts that can take precedence over civil contracts.
Once the organization has sufficient membership there are things that we will undertake on a national level but I am reluctant to go into too much detail publicly; I don’t want to show our hand to the enemy. It will be a membership organization. I plan to incorporate in December and have an active membership list in January. You’re invited.
I think at this point you ought to invest in my book and information booklets. After you read them your questions might be of a different nature. Also, you might review my mission statement.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Mr. Usher that is inflamatory and irresponsible.
I believe that text must be immediately editid for the security of all. It was baseless and bordering on defamatory.
Mr. Usher has publicly admitted that the ABA arm of the Government has completely usurped even all of his efforts. Thus he knows better than any of us that the Constitutional Scheme has been hijacked by the Lawyer Class and is therefor unsalvagable, as that private Guild is not going to surrender its control.
Thus, we have to be responsible adults, declare the body dead, bury it, mourn it, and move on.
I light of Mr. Usher’s content, and presuming his character is stable as well as honestly projected, I am most assured than ever before that he is Change Agent for the Marxists…no friend of any man except himself.
His insinuations are in themselves an indictment of himself to all men.
I suggest severing all ties and attentions from him.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
EG,
If you say it can’t be fixed, what do you advocate? Specifically, what does “reasserting manhood” translate into in terms of your plan of activism. In your past articles and emails, you have always been quite cryptic about where you are going with this mysteriously apocalyptic approach.
In your series of articles, it sure sounds like you might be recruiting terrorists, or perhaps advocating it without saying so directly. If this is not what you are doing, you need to point out exactly what you do advocate — what you want these men to do after they contact you.