Yesterday a woman media consultant asked me what I would ask those who understood my message and were willing to support it, to do. A man asked me a similar question seven years ago. He asked, “If I had ten men who read your book, believed in it, and were willing to support you, what would you have them do?” It’s natural to ask that question, and I could point to our mission statement as an answer, but that is putting the cart before the horse. Those ten men would not be able to do anything more than any other men could, for the reason that they have been emasculated.
The degree of emasculation of the American male is so great that he hardly functions as a male anymore. He has become an automaton consumer—a jackass on the treadmill of production—a work unit and nothing more. He has no authority over anything. He can no longer change anything. The government has usurped his every natural role. When he bands together with those like himself they collectively cannot bring about change.
I have a list of 125 men’s movement organizations, and most of them are defunct; the few that have survived are ineffective. I learned that the National Center for Men recently shut down its New York City offices. The greater New York area consists of 14 million people and the NCFM couldn’t create enough of a following to sustain themselves. What has Men’s News Daily changed? What have any of the well-meaning writers and organizations changed? Nothing. Everybody is writing about what is wrong (that’s what females do) but no one is writing about what to do to correct the wrongs (which is what males are designed to do).
The emasculated male does not even know the cause of his neutering. He blames socialism, feminism, and various conspiracies all of which have their roots in the West, and all of which are effects of an underlying causative factor, which is ignorance of the principle of gender and the universality of patriarchy.
Even an understanding of the universal principle of gender and recognition that patriarchy is family will not be sufficient preparation to make change. In addition to receiving enlightenment men must be empowered.
The thinking of most Western men is that change will be brought about through the system and through collateral efforts on their part. They actually believe that they can keep their jobs, position in the community, family activities, and church involvement at an uninterrupted level while bringing about change. They do not realize that those who bring about change make change their primary activity and everything else becomes collateral.
The system created this mess and it will not be corrected by collateral efforts. Change never occurs through collateral efforts, it comes about from the action of men who make change their primary effort.
The Christian disciples made the propagation of the faith their major function. Earning a living served as the collateral function. The followers of Gandhi and Mandela made the bringing about of change their primary activity. Walter Reuther and the early union pioneers all made earning money the collateral effort to bringing about change. Fidel Castro started his revolution in the jungles of eastern Cuba with a motley band of followers each of whom gave up all that they had to be with him.
Western man has become inured to the feminine materialistic society in which he resides and like a woman he fully expects that if he complains someone else will make change for him. After all didn’t Congress and the various forms of state and local governments advance the feminist agenda? Why if we would just hire lobbyists and work on our legislatures we will be able to do just what they did. And what did they do? They destroyed every vestige of family and the patriarchal structure necessary to maintain it. They were pawns of the liberal movement that sought to have government control humankind, which could only be done by the emasculation of the male and the consequent destruction of the family. They had a congress and nationwide governmental structure comprised of European limp dicks and black honkies tripping over themselves to accommodate them. That’s not what we want to become a part of, that’s what we have to get rid of.
The only way change will come about is for dedicated men and supportive women to make change their primary activity, and all else their collateral activity. Jesus said, “What does it suffer a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul.” Isn’t that what men do when they say they can’t become involved in change because they need to build their future security? And what of men who point to the personal obligations to their children? Are they going to send them to grade schools where they receive graphic instruction in oral sex, where they are taught alternate lifestyles, where grade school girls have sex clubs, where when they reach adulthood they can go to California and work as interns in pornographic films so that they can put together a resume saying that they are certifiable whores and then get jobs at big city strip clubs? Are they being taught to leave the home and nurturing of the race for jobs in industry, which in reality is peddling their asses for a buck and has been known since the beginning of time as whoredom? Is that the legacy that real men want to leave to their daughters? Is having every shred of masculinity torn away from their sons so that they try to escape the system through sports, entertainment, substance abuse, gambling, and pornography; the legacy real men want to leave to their sons? Is it not better to leave all of that behind and work to provide your children an environment that will enable them to be real men and women who together will fulfill their god given direction to propagate and preserve the species while growing spiritually?
And those single men who have only themselves to care for, what possible reason can there be for making change a collateral effort? A young intelligent single man told me recently that his job was his main concern but he could make participation in Men’s Action a collateral effort. What good is he to the organization? A man cannot serve two masters. Desire for change must be the all consuming thought and activity of men in order to get rid of the old and bring in the new. A young writer who had somewhat of a grasp of the issues told me he was moving to another country to ride out the storm. He has given up. When these young men realize that there isn’t any purpose to living in this unnatural society, they will be ready to make change. Men’s Action will welcome them.
Making change requires dedication and perseverance. Machiavelli said, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” We at Men’s action are taking the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. To do this we need enlightened and empowered men.
Castro did not land in Cuba with 50 men, many of them seasick, to do battle with the Cuban military. He landed there to build and army; and he did. Walter Reuther did not immediately attack the industrialists; first he built an army, as did Gandhi and Mandela. St. Paul spent his life building an army.
To answer the question of the first paragraph, if I had ten men who believed in and were ready to support Men’s Action I would ask them to find ten more, and then 20 more, and then 40 more until we had a local army that could be empowered to implement our objectives. In the process of building this army we would develop a sense of camaraderie and also a sense of family—of knowing there are others who have similar views and who can be called upon in time of need.
Are you ready to make change your primary mission and take part in building an army? Then let me hear from you.
E.G.
