Why a Men’s Movement?

Big government. That’s why. Big government – the scourge of civilization – is the enemy of men.

But please don’t get me wrong. The issue is not that we have government. We need government. It serves us and has the potential to serve us well.

The problem is that government that has grown too large – big government – has a different objective: to serve itself. As I will show, big government’s aim is to gain power and control over the people it is meant to serve, that it pretends to serve.

And this is the reason we need a men’s movement. It is why the movement exists, and why it is growing. Big government is using men as its target to ensure its own survival, and, above all, to sustain and enhance its power over the public.

Moreover, it is using bogus assertions from feminist dogma to give itself credence. It is turning men against men and successfully achieving it by making women distrustful and fearful of men. It is even callously helping a handful of women with a malicious nature to bring about false criminal cases against men.

More about feminism in a later post.

As detailed by Angry Harry, a sizable body of people forms an organism. It has characteristics not unlike a biological organism. An organism wants to survive, thrive and grow. It has an ego.

And so governments want to grow. As anybody who has watched a politician making a speech or debating will have noticed that governments have a mind of their own that is beyond the sum total of their members. They have an ego. The speaking politician is driven not so much by his own mind but by his party’s. A politician with certain private views on an issue that differ somewhat from his party’s voted position will air the party’s views, not his own personal views. Behind him there is something bigger than him talking: his party’s collective ego.

But government ego has taken a chilling turn. Let’s look at crime levels. What should be wonderful news that crime in the western world has been in steady decline for decades (see Urban Institute of Crime publication), we are instead seeing a surge in men being sent to prison. Prison numbers have multiplied many times over the last 30 years, despite crime levels shrinking.

What’s happening? The problem is that waning levels of crime are uncomfortable for government. Look at the consequences this has in store for them. It will mean less police, fewer prison places, less work for prison officers, judges and public prosecutors. All these people are government employees. It will result in smaller government, because there will be a lesser need for government.

And this rubs against an organism’s instinct to grow.

Naturally then, government’s reaction is to counter the cause. Government will take measures to arrest this decline in demand for their “services”. Indeed, it will force a need for them: it will do what it can to raise the level of crime. How? There are two ways, both subtle, both clever. One is to foment the circumstances provoking criminal behaviour. The other is to bring out more laws.

Sound far-fetched?

Not when you look at the facts. In the 1960s and 70s California’s prison reform system was the best in the world. Prison governors were from university backgrounds and successfully introduced measures for reducing crime. These included classes for inmates and training for the world of work. The result was that the recidivist rate dropped to 10-15%. Crime successfully went into decline. California’s correctional system became the best in the world.

But then something happened. Naturally, the need for California’s prison guards started diminishing. They were being laid off.

That wouldn’t do. So they lobbied government for harsher sentences to keep inmates re-offending and returning to prison.

It worked. It ensured the safety of their jobs.

Now California’s prison regime is one of the most horrendous in the western world. The recidivist rate rose over the years to the stupefying level of 77% in 2009. Prison numbers have tripled. (See Jailing is Big Business for a detailed account.)

A one-off? No.

Britain’s Labour government also tried this approach in order not to be seen as “soft on crime”. The British government acted under the myth spurred on by tabloids that crime was increasing and that only a harsh penal regime could reduce crime. Rhetoric from politicians skilfully stirred up fear and hatred. Voters would glee that at last something was being done to get tough on those thugs on the streets that would make their lives a misery if they were unlucky enough to fall into their paths.

Crime, in fact, was actually coming down. It has been coming down steadily since the 1990s. See page 9 of the National Archives, showing a similar picture to the Urban Institute’s that I linked earlier.

But police and prison numbers still increased. The number of prisoners rose from 18,000 in 1900 to 45,000 in 1990 to 90,000 in 2010. (That’s double since 1990!) Police numbers rose sharply when Labour came to power in 1997, with an overall increase since the 1960s.

A supremely idiotic cock-up? Highly unlikely. Not from top university graduates in humanities subjects with a firm grasp of social and psychological issues.

Governments would ride in like shining white knights and rescue the public by promising policies to protect the public. Their aim was to win their support for policy that would horrify them if they knew the facts.

And this picture, like an ugly instance of déjà-vu, persistently repeats itself in policy areas on other social issues that I shall be returning to.

In fact, all of them draw on claims based on feminist nonsense.

What can we as a Men’s Movement do? We need to get the message out my friends. Join a blog or a news talkboard: try the Guardian, the Telegraph or the Huffington Post.

Tell your friends on Facebook or Twitter.

Want to learn more? Check this out. Here’s an excellent video from ManWomanMyth on how governments are trying to wreck human intimacy. Includes an interview with Angry Harry.

All the best.