At a point in time (March
19, 2004) where the West appears to be losing the War on Terror, it
is appropriate to point out that there are linkages between this War
and internal politics -- including Men's Rights. Indeed, if the West
keeps on losing this War on Terror, it is possible that issues relating
to internal politics will rise to the surface in a way that catches
most people completely off-guard.
The US Constitution is Worth Zilch
It is clear that some Western governments -- especially the USA --
see themselves as bringing "Democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, I think it is safe to assume that many people in those (and
other) countries don't have such a rosy image of Western Democracy as
those Western governments do.
For example, some (like myself) might say that the US Constitution
is worthless. There are several arguments that point in that direction
(such as the political nature of appointments to the Supreme Court,
and the notion that the Constitution is a developing document). However,
the one I want to discuss is how the MUC (Media-University
Complex) determines whose rights are actually enforced under the
Constitution.
The most glaring example of this phenomenon is the 1994
Violence Against Women Act . That this Law has not been struck down
by the Supreme Court long ago as a gross violation of the US Constitution
(Amendment
XIV) must appear completely scandalous to anyone who hasn't been
brainwashed by the MUC. And this is where Al Qaeda comes in, because
it (and its fellow-travellers) are one of the few groups of people who
are immune from the Globalised MUC (which is now in control of most
international organisations).
The idea that women, and women only, should be protected by such an
Act is an obvious, gross case of sexual discrimination, and is only
comprehensible in the context of the MUC brainwashing that envelops
us. In that most Fascist* of institutions --
the Western university -- you only get shouted down by Feminazi Law
students (for example) if you tell the truth about Sex War issues. Since
I'm the only person I know of who both:
-
knows the truth about sex and violence, and
-
is brave enough to say it in a female-dominated Western Law Faculty,
very few people are aware of the totalitarianism that the MUC represents.
Here is not the place to explain to the Brainwashed why there is no
need for a Violence Against Women Act. I refer you to such webpages
as:
and
Just as the US (and other Western) constitutional documents tend to
get interpreted in an anti-male way, so do judges and lawyers approach
individual cases in an anti-male frame of mind -- because of MUC brainwashing.
I refer you to the page http://mens.human-rights.org/islaws.html.
Another striking example is the following quote from New Zealand Family
Court Judge K G MacCormick (A v R [2003] NZFLR 1105, 1107):
"That more women seek (protection orders) is no
doubt (my emphasis) because men are generally physically
stronger and more inclined to try to resolve disputes by the use of
physical force."
It is not just that the Judge was patently utterly wrong (see http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
), and it is not just that such anti-male stereotypes and prejudices
are grossly oppressive towards men and destructive of families. The
main point is that the learned Judge did not feel the need to refer
to anything remotely resembling evidence before
making a statement like that, and (possibly) basing his judgement on
it. The MUC does his thinking for him -- constantly presenting him with
highlighted examples of male violence against women and no examples
-- or only apparently "justified" examples -- of female violence
against males. All judges (in common law systems) used to be lawyers,
so it is not surprising that men find it hard even to find a lawyer
who could conceive of what a pro-male approach might be like.
Al Qaeda as a Political Alternative
In politics, you have to take the rough with
the smooth. It would not be logical to prefer Al Qaeda's ideology to
Western Pseudo-Democracy for the only reason that the West is not democratic
enough. Any country ruled by Al Qaeda, after all, would be even less
democratic. Moreover, Islam (like Christianity) has often been spread
by conquest, rather than by persuasion, and there are indications that
Al Qaeda would try to convert people to Islam by force, if it could.
It may be aiming to reconquer Spain, which used to be a Moslem country.
Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that the
West connived in (or even instigated) a military coup in Algeria when
it seemed that Muslim Fundamentalists were about to win a democratic
election there. If we don't have a level playing-field, both sides can
claim the moral high ground. Black American males, in particular, may
see Al Qaeda as a saviour if it seems to be the way of the future. People
love a winner, and the women whose self-centred sexism dominates the
MUC don't have the stomach for a drawn-out guerrila war. They can't
get the men do do their dying for them as they used to -- it's the civilians
who are getting hit !
*I use the word "Fascist"
because MUC propaganda has caused it to change in meaning to "politically
bad". If I used technically more correct words such as "totalitarian"
or "Marxist", most people would see this as a compliment --
or neutral, at worst -- because of MUC propaganda being overwhelmingly
Leftist.
|
