Brother, Minister or Missionary?

Started by richard ford, Apr 17, 2005, 02:36 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

richard ford

Brother - Minister - Missionary. Public copyright, Richard Ford

These are three words that have religious connotations but are still the three essential roles that men can play in the men's rights movement. Whenever we succeed I find men playing all three of these roles and wherever we fail I find that we are not. This is a huge claim, but one that I think I can prove. My thesis is that by understanding the roles men play within successful organisations we can recognise our true calling (see, religious words coming up again - but the Church is an amazingly successful organization so why not?).

First we have the role of Brother. Being a Brother involves the lowest level of commitment of any of the three roles. The Brother simply makes himself available to other men, particularly those with problems. It is quite possible for a Brother to be a Brother without formerly joining a Brotherhood because a Brotherhood is nothing more than a group of men who value themselves and others. Another way of putting it would be to say that a Brother creates a Brotherhood simply by being a Brother. There is no need to 'recruit' other men into this Brotherhood because this happens whenever one man recognises the value of having a good friend. Brothers may or may not be politically active, but it is inevitable that Brotherhood will be a learning experience on every level including the political.

How does a man benefit from being a Brother? Firstly, he will find the company of people who value him. It is common for men to go out in the evening with the intention of finding women. As soon as any woman appears on the radar the men become competitors for her. They compete to be funny, buy her drinks and flatter her. She is in heaven but what message does this give the other men in the group? The message it gives is that men are of no real interest even to other men. Nothing he says to his friends will be taken much notice of because they are also his competitors and will not give him too much status within the group for fear he will take the women. There is also no particular reason why any woman should respect a man who enters such a degrading arrangement. His so called friends will tease him in front of the woman and take her side against his because they are more interested in making a good first impression on her than maintaining a lifelong friendship. A Brother can expect greater respect - from both sexes. Conversation among Brothers is more serious and more meaningful. There is less tendency to compete for alpha male status when women are out of the picture so there are fewer 'joke' put downs and rivalries. A Brother is secure in the knowledge that he has real friends. Very few men can be truly sure of this because we put our energies into romantic attachments that can turn bad leaving us with nothing. Being a Brother among other Brothers makes it far more likely any relationship he enters will be a happy one.  If he is being abused he will realise it if he has a friendship to compare his relationship with. If he dreads going home or only feels physically healthy when he is with his friends he will realise he how much better it is not to be afraid. The strange thing about destructive relationships is that it is possible to become used to pain (physical and emotional). The victim can even come to believe that he is mad - or become mad. It is only when the victim finds himself in an environment where is valued and is no longer walking on eggshells that he realises that he has been living in hell.

Membership of a Brotherhood (formerly declared or not) also gives career benefits. Women are often members of 'networking associations' that exclude men. These associations are inevitably run by feminists, many of which are abusive or suffering mental problems of one sort of another. As a result these groups often become miniature versions of the society they seek to impose and offer a glimpse into hell. Very few women can remain in such an environment for very long. Women's networking associations frequently meet in company premises and have a level of acceptance that no Brotherhood is likely to achieve for many years. Membership of Brotherhoods will be a healing experience for men while woman's networking associations are about power and money. At present feminists control most of the power and money in society but are rarely happy. If I had a choice between giving you wealth and giving you happiness, dear reader, I would give you happiness. The wonderful thing about making happiness our immediate goal is that we do not have to fight anyone for it. A man becomes happy simply by being happy. All the power and sickness of feminism cannot crush the desire to be happy in a healthy person.

The next role on the list is the Minister. A Minister is simply someone who has decided to minister to the needs of others. In wider society the work minister has almost become the opposite to its original meaning. A Church Minister is someone who is ministered to rather than someone who ministers to the needs of others. The Church Minister is the person who the congregation pay their offerings to and who is relieved of the obligation to support himself. Government Ministers also have their large cars and their flatterers which detract from the original meaning of the word which is 'the person who serves others'.

I consider myself a minister of the men's movement. I have none of the advantages of other ministers and do not seek them. I have returned to the original meaning of the word by creating my own charitable trust and various other ventures such as writing articles like this one. I donate about ten percent of my income to this trust and fund a number of men's groups from it. To be honest my current years contribution is only about six percent as I am still suffering fallout from my divorce but I aim for ten. When I write about the projects that I support my aim is not simply to boast. I am trying to explain how a great deal of good can be done with very little money. I estimate that it may be possible to reverse feminism in a country the size of Britain (fifty million) with no more than five hundred ministers. 'Absurd' you might say while taking your pocket calculator out of your pocket. 'This means that each minister would have to change one hundred thousand people!' Well... not really. First of all not everyone in the UK is committed to feminism. Many are neutral or feel that there is something wrong with it but cannot quite find the language to explain what it is. You will discover this as soon as you 'come out' as an anti feminist. Remember that I am only talking about the ministers here. There will be many thousands or hundreds of thousands who will be willing to free themselves from mental slavery or improve their marriages if this involves rejecting feminism but relatively few who are willing to live a life of service to this end. The public are drawn to people who make definite statements with their lives (out of envy quite often) and they are also drawn to goodness. The dominant culture in feminist societies is usually cynical and somewhat bitter. When one has the self confidence to set out ones stall and offer something better we are surprised at the response. It has become impossible to say certain words without a slight ironical tone. 'Charity' 'Honour' 'Patriotism' 'Fatherhood' 'Integrity' 'Honesty' 'Courage', all of these words have negative connotations under feminism and yet they are the values upon which civilization stands. It may have become difficult to speak these words in public but we should not underestimate their power. Most popular films and books still show the triumph of goodness over evil because the public demand this. They simply will not finance any other conclusion.

An individual how announces that he intends to live a life of service can expect some initial ridicule. There is no point in being upset about this and it is not even feminist inspired ridicule. There have been many such people who have made this claim in the past and many of them now have Swiss bank accounts. It is quite reasonable that people should be suspicious of us. The second response will be to test us. They are tempted to believe us but want to be sure. Testing behaviour should also be welcomed as it gives us the opportunity to prove that we are what we say we are. There will be some people who will not engage in honest testing because they have darker motives. They see your goodness as an attack upon their own behaviour and will set out to bring you down for this reason alone. They also think that good people are not permitted to defend themselves and see you as an easy victim.

The way to deal with these tests is to make no claim about yourself that will be difficult to stick to. To give an example, I claim only to fund some worthwhile charities and to have a good heart although am quite capable of being thoughtless. I try to treat others with respect and am truthful with them. I can live within these parameters quite easily because this is my true nature and not a PR image. I have no doubt that I have many bad qualities as well but I can forgive these in myself because I know my intentions are basically good. This means that it is difficult to catch me out for being a hypocrite. If I were to set some very high standard for myself then it would be much easier to do so. Remember that people want to believe that goodness is possible so you are swimming with the tide of human nature. Feminism offers a very negative view or humanity which appeals to unhealthy people but repels everyone else. Feminism offers the believer many benefits, it absolves the believer from guilt or personal responsibility because the feminist believes she is fighting a war. Feminism appeals to pride because women are automatically included in the master race no matter what else they are. Feminism also gives the believer permission to be mentally unhealthy. It is strange that this should be seen as an advantage to some people but it is. Have you ever met someone who sucks up all the pain in every situation and wallows in it? Feminism gives the individual permission to suffer as much as they wish. If the believer is female she has permission to be angry and a victim. If male (God help him) he will be able to hate himself and suffer at the hand of feminists.

Death is appealing to many people. Many political movements have been based upon little more than death. The Nazis may have talked about the survival of the Arian race but there appeal was largely death based. An adherent was expected to submerge his own individuality and submit to the leader (in a sense die). Sacrifice on the battlefield was valued more than happiness or fulfilment. Ultimately sacrifice and death was all the Nazis had to offer.

Today we see radical Islam which sees an individuals death as being more important than their life. They offer a quick solution to all of life's problems in the form of instant death and paradise. Ultimately this movement will die out because it delivers just what it promises. Death to all that believe in it. Feminism is also a death choice because it is an anti reproduction philosophy and an anti moral one. Any society that embraces it will be destroyed over three to five generations because it is always accompanied with a fall in the birth rate, a rise in crime (fatherless children) and economic failure (jobs being filled by quota).

I have said that the appeal of death is very strong but the appeal of life and happiness is even stronger- and has always triumphed in the past. The men's movement in general and ministers in particular must place themselves on the side of life because this will be the side that wins. We will do this firstly by sorting out our own lives and becoming the happy and balanced individuals feminists can never be. Secondly we will overcome the selfishness and egotism that feminist societies are always infected with. This allows us to reach out to others with a sincerity feminists cannot match. Lastly, ministers must not equate service with suffering. How can suffering have anything to do with service when even feminists suffer? Feminists are the most self centred and selfish creed that has ever existed on this planet!

The third category is the Missionary. The missionary is so named because he is literally one who is on a mission. It could be argued that ministers are on a mission and therefore this category is unnecessary. I would disagree because there are a number of stark differences between them. The minister is usually someone who enables and encourages others while the missionary will typically become aware of his mission in life in a single moment. He will then call upon the help of ministers in order to make his mission possible. One role that ministers often play is to help missionaries become aware of their true mission. This makes the role of the missionary easy to misrepresent- the missionary is not subordinate to anyone but he will often rely upon ministers for the larger picture.

It may be clearer if I give you a specific example. Matt O'Connor, (minister) the founder of Fathers4Justice set up the organization with his own money. He was fortunate to meet a number of men who were willing to risk jail for their beliefs (missionaries) and they jumped at the opportunity to do so. They are not 'controlled' by Matt O'Connor because they have their own burning personal reasons to do what they do. Matt is simply the means by which they find it possible to follow their dream. Nevertheless missionaries are usually content to accept guidance from ministers who they truly trust because ministers usually have excellent plans. Missionaries are less concerned with strategy because their main motivation is to immerse themselves completely in the thick of the action. Fathers 4 Justice holds regular meetings where men gather to talk about their latest struggles. This became a brotherhood and success was thus assured. One point to make is that the organization is not controlled by the Brothers (members) it is merely run for their benefit. A secret band of activists meet to plan stunts and the membership only hear about it later. This may seem undemocratic but it has prevented police infiltration and makes sense when we understand the different reasons a person may have to join this organization.

I am not advocating an artificial system for dividing people into groups and restricting the roles they can play- I have had far too much of this with feminism. I am trying to understand why organizations succeed or fail. It is possible you may recognise yourself here and eventually come to understand the way you relate to others in the movement. In any case, a great deal of harm is done by men who are playing their roles badly. For example...

The Bad Brother. This character tells victims of domestic violence that he has no sympathy with losers and victims. He cannot understand why any man should be so weak as to allow himself to be dominated in this way. He suspects that it may be nothing more than a sexual kink of the victims. Worse still he seems to think he should be admired for his straight talking and inner strength.

The fact that there is a grain of truth in some of what he says simply drives the poison in deeper. It is easy to dismiss this person as stupid or evil intentioned but he is probably neither- he simply lacks imagination or empathy. He is probably an action orientated person and not a feelings person and would do well as a missionary.

The Bad Minister. This person resembles Hitler in his bunker as Berlin falls to the Soviets. He has a master plan and everyone is expected to drop whatever they are doing and do something else. He insists that activists change the tactics that made groups such as fathers4justice successful and adopt 'radical' (they nearly always use this word) tactics of his own invention. These characters have usually formed at least one men's rights organization of their own which has only one member- themselves. Nevertheless they are always experts on how to become a mass movement.

They expect to become the focus of attention wherever they go. Anyone doing anything constructive is expected to justify themselves to the Bad Minister and his anger and insistence becomes greater the more successful the other group becomes. This condition (if left untreated) ends with the publication of bizarre anti fathers4justice websites while continuing to claim that he is a men's rights activist. You are as unlikely to see this person on a demo as you are to see a General under fire in a foxhole. He is the Leader!

The only cure I know is a sense of humility. Sometimes a spell as a missionary will do this as these people have a great deal of pent up energy. Missionaries do not have to wait for other people to do things. They act.

The Bad Missionary. This person is the true action man. Most missionaries have a romantic streak in them that values commitment above strategy. This is why they usually rely upon ministers for these things. The Bad Missionary values any stupid action no matter how destructive because he thinks sincerity is all that matters. You may find him hitting a policeman on prime time news if you are not very careful.

The solution: avoid.

Go Up