Learned helplessness

----- Original Message -----

From: *********************

To: aum@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:01 PM

Subject: [AUM] Re: The Future of Masculinity...Also Looking For Moderators

"Yes but the movement is full of men who were well established and
then there wives abused them.  "

First, you say "were" well established which could mean they no longer
are;

 [yea I know but I was thinking about the power that women have(in law) to totally destroy a man.]

 second, I send "tend to" as in generally speaking, that this is
not always the case I am quite aware. Take one obvious case - myself.
I am well established, I have never been married or burned  in a
relationship, I have no children, and not only am I involved
in the movement but I am one of the more assertive of its proponents.

[Great stuff mate, keep it going.]

Remember, I said "It is not simply talent, but in a culture war as in
any competition it is the talent you have *relative*  to the opposition that matters."  I know a lot men who were who treated badly
by their wives and not one of  them will join the movement even at my
urging.

 [Yea that's because of something called learned helplessness(LH), and most men suffer from it, and I've got the studies to prove that most men suffer from it. It's also what makes judges discriminate agianst us. Some folks call it pussy power. They're right, in essence, but it's not that simple. Now don't loose spirit because there's an up side. We now have huge numbers of men who have been forced to go cold turkey and so are able to think free from the effects of LH and so they can now think for themselves. In short women's abuse on us has been a blessing for mankind. Now as womenkind see the mistake that they have made in spurning their husbands then their consensus will be one of wanting to unite with men agian. Now before this happens we will need to have indoctrinated men with the truth. This has always been my goal. How do we do that? Well you're doing a pretty good job your self. So is Tom and many of the others.]

   As for the men (and boys) who are involved via discussion
groups, I have trouble shaming a single one of them into doing a
little scanning work. Many men have told me that they are afraid of
losing what they have by joining. 

 [They don't have to join exactly, all they have to do is get out the truth. This is the main task which needs done. Many of the guys do it already.]

 How many women are afraid of losing what they have by being feminists? (See my next post for further comments on this point)

[I don't know any women, personally, who would like to be called a feminist. It's worse than calling them a bitch or a whore. A whore at least is attractive enough to get men into her bed, a feminist is worth a lot less than that, if that is she's worth anything at all.]

"So what organisation did the women have?"

The key word here is "did" which implies the past while I was talking
about the present.  Indeed, the traditional "Methods of Women" are of
a more personal nature and lack the advanced organizational structure
that men use, or as David Throop put it;  "Of course it's
hierarchical. It's a guy thing." If I were to ask myself today what
organization I am up against the most I would say the Federal
Government.  Now, the government is organized - too *organized* for my
tastes.  As a matter of fact, I believe a couple guys did a rather
nice study that shows how big government goes hand in hand with
the growth of power of women,

 [ I'd like to see that study]

  or as Aristotle put it; "women do not
conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies
.. since under them they have a good time."   It seems that in the
latter stages of a civilization women both imitate male behavior to
some degree and takeover over the institutions created by men which
allows them to have more organization than before.
(This is involved so I have to cut it short.)


" *And* are they burning?"

All in due time; "I stood at the gate of hell and saw that most of
those who entered were women"    Muhammad

 [ I caution the use of religion within the masculist movement because were one to bring it in then there would be factions all over the place. Let's join the masculist band with only one hat on. For instance your comment about Mohammad, does it not insult Christians and Jews? I'm not saying that it does, but please haven't we got enough factions?]

Spartacus

--- In aum@y..., "Spencer Mewha" <southafrica0009@t...> wrote:
> You wrote: 'people with talent tend to be well established and will
be less likely to want to risk what they have'
>
>  Yes but the movement is full of men who were well established and
then there wives abused them. Remember more than half of our women
threw out there husbands and prostituted themselves to either the
men's money or to the government.
>
> Again you wrote: 'if everyone just does his own thing there will not
be any organization to combat are highly organized opponents'
>
> So what organisation did the women have? I submit that they had none
and that rather they just had the will to selfishly further
themselves. Well now, we have that will, for the first time in human
history. We're being selfish and just thinking about males. Now how
much more can we achieve?!!
>
> Again you wrote: 'Organization requires hierarchy, if you do not
subordinate then you will burn.'
>
> Again I ask you, what organization did the women have? *And* are
they burning? No my friend they are not.
>
> Say it loud and say it proud my brother, but most of all just say
it.!!!
>
> Regards Spence
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: **************
>   To: aum@y...
>   Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 12:42 AM
>   Subject: [AUM] Re: The Future of Masculinity...Also Looking For
Moderators
> >
>   "talent is not a problem"
>
>   I deliberately try to skirt over this issue so as not to appear
>   either critical or egotistical but there are realities we need to
>   confront.  Let us begin with a conversation in "The Brothers
>   Karamozov" by Dostoyevsky. Two of the brothers are
>   commenting on the new socialist movement and the low
>   characters within in. One brother points out that this is
>   because the movement is new and that a better class of people
>   will join as the movement progresses. Now there are other
>   reasons why low characters would be attracted to a *socialist*
>   movement, but still, people with talent tend to be well
established
>   and will be less likely to want to risk what they have on
something
>   unpopular and which could fail or at least not succeed soon enough
>   to reward them for what they will lose by joining now.  These
people
>   are tied to the status quo, even if they don't have a lot of
material
>   wealth the social ostracism they might face could be
overwhelming.  On
>   top of all this a political movement up against the fundamental
divide
>   has particularly unique hindrances.  What man does not have a
wife, a
>   girlfriend - a *mother*, and other female family and friends that
they
>   would have to answer to. What was that line in "Rip Van Winkle" -
>   (roughly) "What man has the courage to stand up to a woman's
tongue".
>
>   Oswald Spengler writes "it is deeply significant that we are in
the
>   habit of calling thinkers, doctrinaires, and humanity-
enthusiasts of
>   anti-political tendency "old women."   They wish to imitate the
other
>   history, the history of woman, although they -- cannot."  So if
most
>   of those over-intellectualized males in academia and elsewhere
lend
>   their talents to the feminist cause where does that put us?  It
is not
>   simply talent, but in a culture war as in any competition it is
the
>   talent you have *relative* to the opposition that matters.  This
may
>   seem to imply that we need to rely on more than just words and
>   intellect and to which I will repeat without further comment -
"Gird
>   up thy loins"!
>
>   There is another problem that is related but of a different
nature.
>   Many the of men in the movement (like many of the people on the
>   internet) are here because of the ease of access to the Internet.
>   Without "barriers to entry" any Yahoo can put up his 2 cents
>   for the world to see. They of course don't see it as 2 cents and
some
>   would swear they are offering the crown jewels.  I don't wish to
sound
>   insensitive, and I know what little public opportunity there is
for a
>   man to express his views, but if everyone just does his own thing
>   there will not be any organization to combat are highly organized
>   opponents.  We could just pat everyone on the back and tell them
how
>   wonderful they are and to just keep on doing what they are doing,
but
>   that won't help the movement much.  A lot of steam will be
released -
>   some stress relieved, but that is like treating the symptom
without
>   getting to the root of the illness. Even for those with real
talent I
>   have to point out that Lucifer did not become the Devil by lacking
>   talent - quite the contrary. Organization requires hierarchy, if
you
>   do not subordinate then you will burn.
>
>   Personally I would prefer coordination to subordination and " a
first
>   among equals" to something more autocratic but as Tom Smith
pointed
>   out "Insurgency movements for men have been traditionally
religious or
>   authoritarian."  Independence goes to the root of being male,
trying
>   to get men to surrender a good part of their freedom in order to
avoid
>   a greater evil is a hard sell.
>
>   I see I'm going to ramble on forever; I'm have to break off and
say
>   more later.
>
>   Spartacus