The Demonization of Men (and Everyone Else Too)

Read the following message aloud in a public space: “Caution: area where women regularly attempt to damage someone’s reputation.”

I have never seen a sign with the above message in a public space, and I don’t want to either, writes Thomas Harrington .

Likewise, I have never seen a sign near a predominantly African-American neighborhood that reads: “Caution, you are entering an area where your chance of becoming a victim of violent crime is statistically much higher than in other places.”

And again, I don’t want that either.

My reasons for never wanting to read these things are, or should be, self-evident to any reasonable person: in a society that claims to be democratic, it is never permissible for the state apparatus to level moral accusations against an entire subgroup of the culture based on the immutable characteristics of that subgroup.

And yet, in many municipalities in the US and Europe, there is a trend to put up signs on public transport that, to varying degrees of explicitness, designate all men as potential gropers and harassers.

For example, during a recent ride on the Catalan government’s public transport, I was informed via messages on the train carriage wall that the government agency applies a “zero tolerance policy for male violence” in the public spaces it manages.

As I write this, I can already hear the objections from some readers. “Do you mean that unwanted touching and harassment by men do not exist on public transport?” “Or that you have no interest in stopping this?”

I am not saying anything of that nature at all.

Of course it exists, and it must not be tolerated.

The question is whether, in attempts to eradicate the problem, it is morally and legally justifiable to use government funds to designate 49% of the population as a latent threat to every member of the remaining 51% of the population, with all the resulting consequences for generating widespread social distrust within the population.

But Tom, are you suggesting that sexual violence, however you define it, is not predominantly of a male-on-female nature?

Of course not.

Just as I do not deny—as I suggested with the intentionally provocative passages in this essay—that at universities today, with their increasingly female-dominated boards and human resources departments, reputational destruction aimed at sidelining or destroying the professional careers of rivals for power and privilege within the system is an overwhelming form of female-on-male violence, or that a person’s chances of becoming a victim of violence are statistically clearly greater in predominantly Black areas of the US than in predominantly White ones.

But as I suggested earlier, no one would ever think, quite rightly, of using government funds to warn others of the dangers they might face in these circumstances due to these two genetically determined subcategories of people.

Given the deafening silence regarding this issue in our public discussions, however, it seems that most people have no problem with the government labeling citizens with the genetic trait ‘male’ as a particular threat to public order.

As I have said many times before, it is never a waste of time to try to fathom the goals and methods of the small class of filthy rich people who seem obsessed with constantly increasing the enormous control they already exert over the lives of the vast majority of the population.

I also know that the fact that men have higher testosterone levels, and consequently a much greater tendency and ability to physically challenge the order forces deployed to protect the status quo in favor of the elite, and their propensity for violent forms of rebellion, is a constant source of concern among the ultra-powerful.

And because these ultra-powerful people also understand that the course an open social conflict can take is always unpredictable, they will, where possible, attempt to prevent such clashes using preventive measures. As the saying goes: the best battle is the one you win without ever fighting.

So, how can you achieve a preventive victory over the growing legions of often justifiably pissed-off men?

Simple. Use the means of cultural influence at your disposal as a member of the ultra-elite to systematically discredit the “toxic” nature of traditional male traits.

And there is no better way to do this than by capitalizing on one of the uglier manifestations of traditional male behavior – sexual violence – and using this as a club to discredit masculine traits in general, including positive traits such as setting firm boundaries, physical courage in the face of hardship and unjust governance, and the desire to protect valuable social norms and traditions against the eroding forces of planned or unplanned social entropy.

And the benefits for the super-elite of implicitly characterizing all men as potential sexual predators in the eyes of young women and many others do not stop there.

It has been clear for some time to anyone who has taken the trouble to look that our current super-elite harbor enormous contempt for the vast majority of people with whom they share the planet, and view them primarily as obstacles to the implementation of their plans for a “more efficient” (read: more favorable to them) distribution of goods and services in the world.

For example, Curtis Yarvin, a misanthrope whose high opinion of himself far exceeds the demonstrated fruits of his intelligence and his humanity and who, perhaps for this reason, has attained the status of “great thinker” in the technocratic circles of Silicon Valley, has spoken openly about the coming “serious problem” of what to do with what he calls the “brain-dead masses,” that is, the surplus of useless people that will be produced by technologically enabled economic efficiency.

His solution? House and feed them, but keep them locked up in a virtual world, supported by high-quality virtual reality, where they cannot stand in the way of the magnificent plans for mobilizing global resources – devised by the small and farsighted thinking class.

But an even better approach than this would, of course, be to ensure that most of these useless eaters are never born at all.

And we have seen a number of them in recent years.

One of these is conducting campaigns intended to convince confused and/or mentally ill teenagers that mutilating their genitals is a permanent solution to their current unhappiness. Another is the rhetorical elevation of abortion from the status it has hitherto held in virtually all healthy cultures—a regrettable but perhaps occasionally necessary evil—to that of an undivided cultural good.

But perhaps the simplest of all is convincing one or the other party in the male-female dynamic that their potential reproductive partners are generally not to be trusted when it comes to safeguarding their own well-being or that of their future children.

Hence the current efforts in public transport and other public spaces to sow doubt about the ability of men in those places to behave in a civilized and dignified manner.

And it works. And if you don’t believe me, take the time to talk to the group of women aged 16 to 35 in your life, especially if they have attended a “prestigious” institution of higher education.

Just as certain as they ‘know’ that in every generation before their own, the abuse of homosexuals was a generally accepted sport practiced with great pleasure by most heterosexual men, they are ‘certain’ that a happy and respectful complementarity of roles in relationships between men and women has rarely or never existed in the past, and that the reason for this was that most men simply could not control their innate need to dominate women and prevent them from becoming happy and fully developed individuals.

Is it any wonder, then, that the birth rate in most Western countries is reaching a historic low?

Yes, the economy plays a major role in this phenomenon. But by blaming everything on that, one overlooks the fact that throughout history, people have had a tendency to reproduce, through thick and thin.

It is indeed true that bringing new life into the world has often been seen and practiced precisely as an important means of combating hardship and oppression, for the simple reason—a reason that elitist materialists who want to play God, like Curtis Yarvin, would never understand—that every new life is a miracle that carries within it the promise, however vague it may sometimes seem, that our species becomes a little more creative, a little more human, and, yes, a little freer.

During the COVID operation, the government, in collaboration with its allies in the business community and the media, deployed a wide range of culture influence techniques to strengthen its ability to steer the behavior of the population.

One of the most important, but least discussed, of these was the appropriation of the “right” to label those who happened not to agree with the then-administration’s view on bodily sovereignty as morally deficient and in need of punitive correction. This is what happened when the formaldehyde-soaked Joe Biden was told by his advisors to say that he was “losing patience” with the approximately 100 million American citizens who refused to take medically useless and, in many cases, dangerous vaccines.

This case, in which the American president denounced the alleged ‘enemy within’ regarding an issue that – given the vaccines’ obvious inability to prevent infection or transmission – was purely a matter of personal bodily sovereignty, should have led to widespread protest and disapproval.

But that did not happen. And the creators of the Covid experiment clearly took note of this lack of response and reasoned that if they could get away with it in that case, what would stop them from doing the same with regard to other groups, primarily the stronger, more aggressive, and therefore potentially more authority-resistant male group in society?

And so we have ended up here, with government-funded signs in public places that subtly but clearly suggest that people born as men should not be seen by women as noble protectors or bearers of wisdom or the many other positive things they often are, but as latent carriers of violence.

Who benefits from that message? It is certainly not most men, and for that matter, not most women either.

However, it does work for those super-elite who, for reasons related to their obsessive urge to control both the resources and the behavior of their fellow men, would like to see more social fragmentation, weaker families and communities, and ultimately fewer useless eaters to contend with.

Although each of us is free to devise and adhere to our own personal theories regarding the actions taken by, or on behalf of, Collective X or Collective Y, it is never right for the government to do so, especially when that collective is defined by its inherent characteristics.

And if and when they engage in this, know that, despite whatever they may say, they do not do so because they care about you or want to protect you, but because they want to sow discord or cultivate distrust regarding a group they view as a potential obstacle to their pursuit of ever-increasing power.

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-demonization-of-men-and-everyone-else-too