The media is an arm of the establishment, and so discourages any kind of assertive masculinity at every possible opportunity (e.g. the BBC misandric programme 'Bring Your Husband to Heel', & Channel 4's 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy'). This includes discouraging active masculinity in the form of protests - because any kind of protest is an indication of non-submissiveness. Especially protests that get physical. It hates any kind of masculine potency, any kind of positive action, any kind of physical action.
Take the BBC for instance, it's a feminised institution that promotes the feminist agenda at every opportunity (e.g. 'Womans Hour' on BBC Radio 4), so it's no surprise that they fail to report on the success (that's right the success!) of violent protesters in Romania who succeeded in defending their homeland and telling oil giant Chevron, in around about way, to Frack off:
“Chevron can today confirm it has suspended activities in Silistea, Pungesti commune, Vaslui County as a result of unsafe conditions generated by unlawful and violent protester activities,” Chevron said in a statement.In contrast to this, here in tranquil England the protesters took a more peaceful option: camping outside the enclosure and waving their banners. On the whole being very polite about it. Not making a ruckus at all. All very British one might say. It's these protests, the feminised, emasculated and unsuccessful ones that the BBC reported on. These feminised and emasculated protests are the ones that the BBC focuses on. Emasculated protests that were unsuccessful.
Fracking plans canceled at controversial UK site – but not because of protests.So you see what happens when you use physical force at the right moment? It works. It works because it uses the right amount of physical force at the right time. It's physical force (which is one aspect of masculinity) that the mainstream media (and establishment, and feminised culture in general) tries to shut down. Why does the establishment do this? Why does it attack masculinity at every possible juncture? What possible reason could it have? Quite simply because it wants to preserve itself; and to do this it needs to emasculate men and the population in general. A man who can think for himself and defend himself and assert his own will is a threat to them. On the other hand an emasculated man is no threat to them. A population with no guns, with no physical muscle, with no brute force is one that the establishment can ride rough-shod over. Just look at the totalitarian regimes in the world throughout history. They have always opposed gun ownership and signs of masculinity. The governments of Communist Russia, Fascist Germany, the Ottoman Empire, to mention a few, were all opposed to gun ownership and all of them committed atrocities against the people they were supposed to serve. The following table illustrates this point:
"GUN CONTROL" LAWS THAT HELPED SLAUGHTER 56 MILLION PEOPLE
|PERPETRATOR GOVERNMENT||DATE||TARGET||# MURDERED (ESTIMATED)||DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW||SOURCE DOCUMENT|
|Ottoman Turkey||1915-1917||Armenians||1-1.5 million||1886-1911||Art. 166, Penal Code|
Art. 166 Penal Code
|Soviet Union*||1929-1953||Anti-Communists / Anti-Stalinists||20 million||1929||Art. 182 Penal Code|
|Nazi Germany** & Occupied Europe||1933-1945||Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis||13 million||1928-1938||Law on Firearms & Ammunition, April 12 Weapons Law, March 18|
|China*||1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976||Anti- Communists Rural Populations Pro-Reform Grou||20 million||1935-1957||Arts. 186-7, Penal Code Art. 9, Security Law, Oct. 22|
|Guatemala||1960-1981||Maya Indians||100,000||1871-1964||Decree 36, Nov 25 Decree 283, Oct 27|
|Uganda||1971-1979||Christians Political Rivals||300,000||1955-1970||Firearms Ordinance Firearms Act|
|Cambodia||1975-1979||Educated Persons||1 million||1956||Arts. 322-8, Penal Code|
That's what the natural consequence is of a government (or any organisation of people) emasculating it's own population: genocide. After all androcide IS genocide. If all the men in a race are killed or emasculated to the point of impotency then that race is dead in the water. It won't last beyond the last generation and it will die, like the Tasmanians, like the Arawak Indians, like the Greenland Vikings who once were and are no more.
If any man wants to exert his will, i.e to live his life as he sees fit, then he must be permitted by society to use physical force and be willing personally to use physical force if the situation demands it. That physical force might be used in a relatively harmless situation like protests about hydrocarbon mining, or in a life-threatening situation like a gun-fight. After all, it all boils down to the same thing at the end of the day: plain ol' physical force, newton-metres per second; and some times physical force is the only way that a point can be put across.