Ministry of Masculine Destruction: It is all About Undermining Manhood! By John Steele
Tyler Durden, pen name derived from the pro-masculine movie Fight Club (1999), writes from the US about the meta-political ramifications of Jacinta Allan announcement that state MP Tim Richardson would serve as the inaugural Parliamentary Secretary for Men's Behavior Change. This is the first position of its kind in Australia. As we know, PM Albanese has called gender-based violence a "national crisis" and actions like this are what we can expect from the feminist Left, who see men as the problem, just like guns. The mythology is being pushed that there is an epidemic of domestic violence by men against women, but not the reverse.
However, as seen by statistics of hospital records for assaults and homicides in Australia: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/assault-and-homicide, there has been a decline in these events over the past 20 years. There has been a rise in violence committed by women against men: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/physical-violence/latest-release. Most violence against men though is by other men, and as well women commit violence against other women: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/physical-violence/latest-release. Women commit 25 percent of the domestic violence against men, which is statistically significant. Hence the issues are far more complex than Albo and the Victorian premier have concluded.
Man's man Tyler Durden puts his finger on it: "All western nations have been involved in the campaign to demonize men in one form or another, utilizing third-wave feminism as a vehicle. Australia is simply acting as a beta test for similar programs to be implemented in other countries.
The use of feminism is necessary to fabricate a rationale; they can't merely attack men for being men or attack men for being potentially rebellious against authoritarian government, there has to be a "victim" that needs protection so that the attack on men appears justified. Those who defend masculinity are thus by extension accused of threatening the safety of women.
In other words, the totalitarians become the "good guys" because they supposedly have women's best interests at heart. And, since men are everywhere, the totalitarians need to be everywhere too so they can keep that terrifying masculinity at bay. The global regime suddenly becomes sacrosanct; a precious defender of women's safety."
In the end, it is once more about totalitarian control.
"The development of totalitarian governments always coincides with sweeping efforts to socially engineer the population to adhere to less rebellious behaviors. Specific groups that present a threat to the regime are usually identified and targeted with propaganda or indoctrination. In tandem, the rest of the population is also conditioned to fear those groups and treat them with suspicion. In this way the establishment elites mold the more submissive public into a shield that protects them from the revolutionaries that might dethrone them.
But what happens when the social engineers want to create tyranny on a global scale? The list of possible rebels grows exponentially larger and efforts to control them all or demonize them all become far more complex. How can the elites simplify their agenda and suppress the public with more efficiency?
The only answer is to attack and cripple the largest subset of the population that is most likely to give them problems in the future. Which monolithic group is more likely to fight back against the system? Obviously, the answer is masculine men. Therefore, this new global regime seeks to undermine and sabotage men, labeling masculinity an existential danger to society, like nuclear weapons or global warming.
In recent years Australia has been at the forefront of many authoritarian experiments. Their egregious violations of citizen liberties during the covid hysteria were astonishing. Perhaps even worse has been the complete takeover of DEI within the Australian government along with the infestation of radical feminism. Australia, it would seem, is all but lost to the nightmare of the woke religion.
That's why it's not at all surprising that the Premier of the Australian state of Victoria has created a new ministry tasked with the purpose of changing and perhaps even controlling men.
Jacinta Allan announced this month that state MP Tim Richardson would serve as the inaugural Parliamentary Secretary for Men's Behavior Change – the first position of its kind in the country. The appointment was in response to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling gender-based violence a "national crisis" and promising greater government action. First, Australia blamed guns for violent crime; now they are blaming men in general.
The mainstream media claims the new effort is in response to a 'crisis of sexist violence against women.' The problem is that the data doesn't support this. Hospital records for assaults and homicides in Australia show a steady decline among men and women in the past two decades, and they also show that men are much more likely to face victimization compared to women.
Of course, it all depends on how the government defines "sexist violence." Does this include contrary ideas or mean words? Let's not forget that for progressives words can be the same as violence. Interestingly, Tim Richardson suggested that his role will focus primarily on the internet and how it "affects men's attitudes towards women." In other words, the government likely wants to control speech on the web to prevent "toxic" male behaviors.
It is not the job of "all men" to take responsibility of the crimes of a tiny handful. It is not the job of government to mold the behavior of the citizenry.
All western nations have been involved in the campaign to demonize men in one form or another, utilizing third-wave feminism as a vehicle. Australia is simply acting as a beta test for similar programs to be implemented in other countries.
The use of feminism is necessary to fabricate a rationale; they can't merely attack men for being men or attack men for being potentially rebellious against authoritarian government, there has to be a "victim" that needs protection so that the attack on men appears justified. Those who defend masculinity are thus by extension accused of threatening the safety of women.
In other words, the totalitarians become the "good guys" because they supposedly have women's best interests at heart. And, since men are everywhere, the totalitarians need to be everywhere too so they can keep that terrifying masculinity at bay. The global regime suddenly becomes sacrosanct; a precious defender of women's safety.
Of course, none of this is true. The establishment's obsession with the cult of transsexualism is proof of that. Their insistence that women are nothing more than a "social construct" that can be replaced by … men in wigs and makeup leaves little doubt that femininity is being targeted nearly as much as masculinity. But the hyperfocus on men is logical if one accepts the possibility that the goal of these programs is to weaken western societies to the point that they are easy to conquer. In this way, the war on masculine men makes perfect sense."
Comments