The Internet has been a game-changer, for good and for bad. Great White Men made it, and it seemed like a sure-fire way to entrench a Patriarchal structure. It is not as if they had some devious plan, but there is an assumption that rigs are natural, and when they are natural to you, you want to spread that skewed prosperity around. Patriarchal storytelling is very skewed and is rigged to be all about the One and the One is the winner who takes all.
To not be the One means you are either (a) the victim, (b) the inferior supporting cast, or (c) the villain.
So you have the Great Men who stomp all over other people to be the One.
The One is a hypothetical construct. It does not actually exist, but it is a convenient delusion that give people the incentive to give it their best -- so they can "win."
#MeToo has now become the greatest challenge to this dysfunctional mindset: all the Great Men who thought they "won" and did it at any cost have been dethroned to their absolute shock and devastation.
A childlike fantasy has been shattered. This should give other predators food for thought that maybe, their narrative is not actually reality. You make too many victims of your manipulation and tyranny, they become a collective, a One of their own.
Or, more accurately, an Infinite.
The chorus of voices may be faceless (what traditional propaganda uses to demonize an enemy), become stronger than the "face" of the sea-appointed hero (the One).
The One becomes a target to evaluate.
It reminds me of an underrated game show called 1 vs 100.
Do you take the money or the mob? One contestant up against 100 and the point is for the One to answer more correct answers than 100 others.
But once the One wins, game over.
Reality is very different.
#MeToo seems like a mob to many men who backstabbed, stole, puffed, and bullied their way to become the One.
Patrick Brown of the Ontario PC party has shown himself to be a true Jekyll and Hyde.
When he was the One of the provincial party, he was bland and had no fire to him. He acted as if he was owed premiership of the province and had no fight in him. He played it safe.
But boy, did he change when he was ousted for naughty -- but stealth -- behaviour toward intoxicated prey.
The man turned into an angry monster, all but vowing to destroy the two women who dared say he was less than perfect.
That he was not the man he was presenting to the public.
He was unrepentant when he misspoke about Premier Kathleen Wynne who demanded, not unreasonably, for him to apologize and take back his incorrect statement. He didn't, and now she is suing him for defamation.
Brown is not a man who owns up to his mistakes. He is out with his hired goons in business suits to hit back at those who dare speak against him.
The shift in his behaviour is very telling: he wasn't this passionate when he was campaigning, because he thought he had it in the bag. The rigs that got him to his position of power were firmly in place, and there was nothing to worry about.
Until his plans proved to be child's play to dismantle.
This is an epic temper tantrum.
But as the PCs start looking over other aspects of his brief tenure as leader, they are not liking what they are seeing. For what it's worth, I do not believe his fire actually has much to do with the #MeToo claims, but more with the other little problems the party is now exposing to the public.
With his minions ousted, the protection is gone.
What will get him in deeper trouble will be all those ridings where a candidate was strong-armed into position, and that's the reason he is going full-force after what he would deem the "weaker" targets, and is keeping his mouth shut on the bigger target.
His predatory strategy and campaign to get back at his detractors here is very intriguing to watch. It is the omissions that are worth noting, but he is outclassed by bigger players who are letting him burnout in public.
The Patriarchal imploded on Brown.
And it is scaring the other disciples of that structure.
Director Michael Haneke is whining about how it is all a "witch hunt" that will cause brainless women to "hate" men.
Women are not going to suddenly hate their fathers and sons. Women do not hate decent men who do not abuse people. Because predatory men in power have been historically sheltered from the wrath and frustrations of those they harmed on their climb to being Great Men, they do not understand the explosion of rage that took centuries to swell up and explode.
They have been exposed to the reality of their tyranny thanks to social media -- those sentiments were always there, but there was no outlet to register them. This movement did not come from thin air -- it came because women who were making their way in the world were sick and tired of the unnatural rigs that kept them back and all the garbage they had to endure -- the ignorant comments, the vile assumptions, and the cheats that favoured men, but did not favour the functionality of the whole.
Imagine if social media was around when white Americans owned black slaves: #MeToo would look mild compared the rage and anger of those who were seen as property to be abused at will.
Would Haneke be whining about a witch hunt then?
When your goal is to be the One, you lose sight of the Infinite. You become Machiavellian because being the only One is unnatural.
This resistance was inevitable, and now that the Great Men have to face the voices of people burned by their campaigns, they see that being the One doesn't make you the hero by default.
It can turn you into a villain.
And what was supposed to guarantee entrenching a Patriarchal narrative on the world is beginning to backfire.
And the Great White Men Thinkers are now having a meltdown at the notion that they may have outsmarted themselves.
Renegade Inc. has a piece how technology is killing democracy.
Silly, silly sophistry and scare-mongering.
No, it's not. Machiavelli had done all sorts of underhanded things way back before social media was a thing -- so it is not the technology, it is the bad behaviour of those in power that made them ripe for a backlash.
A One who can control the Infinite? That's what is truly meant by the term "democracy" -- you can do anything you want, so long at the One deems it okay to do it.
What we are witnessing is a genie out of a bottle.
The Patriarchal was always flawed, and hinged on people buying into its narrative structure.
But it made being the One the only thing to aim for -- and do you really think people are going to cheer a One that isn't them?
If they cannot be the One, then they are going to take down the One who has harmed them in that battle.
It is now a shift in perspective.
Patrick Brown said something very telling: he accused his second "accuser" of being "the aggressor".
This is absolutely telling of a Patriarchal narrative. There is no way he could have been interested in a young female, come on now. He was irresistible, because he is The One.
Had he not thrown that one out, he would have a better chance to be believed, but that comment says it all.
That he is going by the old insinuations of shaming the women by throwing any dirt he can find in their faces is also telling.
But it's the first remark that is the more telling of the two: it's the oldest trick in the book.
No, no, she threw herself at me!
Of course, you had to be The One. It's always all about you. It's the standard excuse for every philandering husband caught in the act.
When all else fails, you are falling back to the Little Boy Excuse, not the Great Man Solution.
And that is the reason we are, for the first time in history, seeing the Patriarchal structure crumble.
Too many little boys posing as Great Men, and when they prove they are neither, they fall back to the little boy defence.
And that is the reason social media is suddenly hated: because in all the muck, the truth and reality is still making their way through it all.
And it terrifies a lot of people whose house of cards is about to fall.