Good news, ladies and manginas: Apparently some MRAs don’t think it’s time to go out and start shooting people. At least not quite yet.
Some background: In recent days numerous MRAs have taken up the cause of a man named Thomas Ball – who burned himself to death outside a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court. Ferdinand Bardamu of In Male Fide has declared him “a martyr for the cause of men’s rights, a casualty of feminism’s stripping one half of the population of their humanity.”
Before killing himself, Ball wrote a long manifesto outlining his grievances and suggesting that the time had come for men “to start burning down police stations and courthouses,” describing the inhabitants of such buildings as “[c]ollaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War … So burn them out. “ (He offered specific advice on how best to do this, including tips on how to select the proper bottles to use for Molotov cocktails.)
All this has inspired some in the MRA to start talking ominously about violence. On The Spearhead, W.F. Price has responded to this talk with a piece suggesting that the time isn’t quite right for the MRAs of the world to take up armed struggle. Not just yet, anyway. As he puts it:
It is never a good idea to pick up a gun and start shooting to address some vaguely defined injustice — that is savagery. Before the American Revolution, for example, patriots took pains to spell out a long list of grievances that justified rebellion. …
We have to make our own lists, air our grievances, and give the state the opportunity to redress them. … Before anyone resorts to the same methods the state uses against us, we must put every reasonable effort into working with the law and the political system we have. Because this effort is still in its infancy, any calls for armed resistance are entirely premature and counterproductive, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Obviously, the flip side of this argument for delay is a justification for killing people if these “grievances” aren’t dealt with in the way that those in the MRA would like. Price’s reference to the American Revolution is an interesting one, because of course the central issue of that struggle was, you know, taxation without representation. The colonists couldn’t vote out the king if they didn’t like his policies. In case anyone has forgotten: we actually do have the vote now, which was kind of the whole point in the first place.
Of course, many of Price’s readers are a bit more impatient than he is. In a comment that drew (last I checked) more than 40 upvotes and only two dissenting downvote, Taqman took issue with Price’s call to delay the armed struggle:
Tell that to men who are facing imminent imprisonment for failure to pay child support.
They don’t have the luxury of time and can’t wait a couple of decades for the manginas of the world to wake up and decide that a gentlemanly form of armed resistance is now acceptable.
The ironically named Firepower, meanwhile, took a little swipe at Ball’s own actions, but didn’t challenge his advice for the rest of the men of the world:
What IS crazy is having to point out that setting YOURSELF on fire is a ridiculous way to “win” anything.
Set your enemies on fire. To even have to remind this questions the long term chances of victory for such a pathetic lot.
Jean Valjean suggested that political action was pointless — due to all those damned women who vote:
No amount of “stoic logic” will make politicians see our point of view.
Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected rather than the business of good governance. So long as women are the majority there will only be tyranny of the majority.
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) — you knew we were getting to him, right? — expressed his profound disappointment that more Spearheaders weren’t willing to embrace a violent solution:
Gee you guys are whimps and tiptoe around the ‘use of force’ like freaking ballet dancers. Are you so scared to speak about this when it is CLEAR the guvment LOVES using force against you and lots of other people too?
And he made the argument personal, explicitly denouncing, by name, the judge he claimed had “criminally abused” him with his rulings:
Judge [name redacted’s] life is now in my hands. He lives by my consent and my consent alone. …
And, like Ball, he declared judges to be essentially treasonous:
These judges pretended to be your servants. They are evil, evil people who deserve the kind of treatment reserved for those who commit treason.
There is more to Nolan’s comment(s) than that, but to get into it would require going down the rabbit-hole into his particular brand of crackpottery, which seems to involve him setting up his own courts to try judges he doesn’t like. (I frankly don’t understand his belief system and don’t care to.)
Now, it should be noted that a few Spearheaders actually objected to Nolan’s violent talk. But the last I checked, the comment I just quoted had more upvotes than downvotes. W.F. Price took more flak for suggesting men wait a little longer before taking up arms than Nolan did for, well, you saw what he wrote. That tells you a lot about The Spearhead, I think.
EDIT: Added quote from Ferdinand Bardamu; removed similar quote from The Spearhead.
“In a just world, you would be profoundly ashamed.”
Oh, wow, you’re right! You’ve convinced me. I’m totally ashamed right now.
I love this one:
“You just redefine words,…”
Like turning any physical interaction into “abuse” isn’t redefining words? Maybe you should look up “projection” and then take my advice and focus on looking within yourself for flaws.
They seem to be on display pretty clearly.
Snowy,
“Oh, wow, you’re right! You’ve convinced me. I’m totally ashamed right now.”
You see? More of the kind of talk that, in a situation where no one will hit you, you can get away with it. If we were face-to-face, there would be no way you’d say such a thing – you would have to engage with the reality of what I’m saying, just as men do with each other. What did your compatriot say?
““People who talk, are generally more bluff and bluster”
Speak for yourselves, because you definitely have no relationship to the rest of us.
_split_ lip, as in the skin is split. Split skin bleeds.
If we can’t even agree on basic definitions of words like “hit” and “split” I just don’t see a productive conversation happening. There’s way too much ground to cover before even beginning to discuss actual _issues_.
“You see? More of the kind of talk that, in a situation where no one will hit you, you can get away with it. If we were face-to-face, there would be no way you’d say such a thing – you would have to engage with the reality of what I’m saying, just as men do with each other.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure I would say the same thing if we were face-to-face. What are you gonna do about it?
You know, Cracker, with a little work you can turn your life story into a really killer version of the four Yorkshiremen sketch. Your creative talents are wasted on blog trolling.
“_split_ lip, as in the skin is split. Split skin bleeds.”
It does not – I cut myself yesterday at work. Guess what? No blood.
Do you even understand what the word “assumption” means? Here, let me help you:
assumption (əˈsʌmpʃən)
— n
1. the act of taking something for granted or something that is taken for granted
2. an assuming of power or possession of something
3. arrogance; presumption
4. logic Compare axiom a statement that is used as the premise of a particular argument but may not be otherwise accepted
ooooh, “arrogance” – that’s not good.
Snowy,
“Actually, I’m pretty sure I would say the same thing if we were face-to-face. What are you gonna do about it?”
Snowy, dear, I’m a military vet from South Central, Los Angeles. I seriously doubt it. But, as someone said, it’s the internet – keep dreaming.
Johnny Pez – who I’ll guess is a mangina – enters the room, calling me “Cracker.”
Boy, you guys are GOOD.
Is anyone going to address your lies, or is it going to be more like this?
Crack Emcee: You still don’t get it:
Oh, I get it. You are a whiney little shit.
Words have meanings. The problem with you is that you want the meanings to change.
Personally, I don’t care if you’ve hit anyone. I’m not going to take you at your word that you’ve not hurt anyone.
I get a lot more, because how you express yourself is pretty telling. I have a pretty good idea why you refuse to admit that what your mother did was abuse. It’s not how you want to see yourself. People who were (or are) being abused are victims. They are weak. You are not weak, after all you have told us so. In your worldview people who admit to be being abused are weak. That would be intolerable.
What else do we know of you, from how you express yourself… Again, you are insecure. You are also not as self-aware as you think. You make claims which are contradicted by the internal evidence of your words. Take, for example, the one about your being good with words. It’s not so. If “narcissistic bitches and manginas” is all you can think to say in the face of the lies and libels you think we have committed. If insisting that words have meanings other than they meanings they have is being good with words, if ignoring arguments, and then inisisting you have refuted us on all points, if that is what you think being good with words is…? Well those words, they don’t mean what you think they mean.
You might, for example, have called us, silly, slack-witted, hysterical harpies. Perhaps you could have really played with words and said we were a hymenopterical hornets nest, rallying to the least perceived threat of reason with an echoing buzz of unthinking denial; the women because they need to defend the indefensible, and the men because they are so scared of seeing the truth and realising what a base lie they have accepted as true; in exchange for the meagre scraps of tolerance and occasional illusion of freedom the feminist culture allows them to pretend they have, they have sold their birthrights for, not even a mess of pottage, but rather the occasional lay.
You could have said something like that, but you didn’t. You had to resort to insults that aren’t even original. We could see that sort of banal trope on any MGTOW/PUA/MRA echo-chamber we care to look at.
You pretend it doesn’t bother you, but it does.
So go back to playing with the other boys; the ones who stroke your ego with platitudinous plauditst you can pretend are plausible. Stick to your sandbox, where you can tell the world how much funnier, and wittier, and better than everyone else you are.
But remember, we see your for what are. A bully-boy who comes in with insults, and threats, and thinks that’s not being combative. Someone who thinks that being hit by someone who was doing it, “whenever she felt like it” and with the intent of causing pain wasn’t being abusive. Someone who ignores the actual criticisms of his arguments, and then says he wasn’t properly replied too.
In short, a braggart, an idiot, and a fool; who returns to his folly, like a dog to his vomit.
“I cut myself yesterday at work. Guess what? No blood.”
Are you dead? Are you a zombie? (No offense to zombie rotten mcdonald) Because if you are then the decay of your brain tissue might explain a lot here.
“Snowy, dear, I’m a military vet from South Central, Los Angeles. I seriously doubt it. But, as someone said, it’s the internet – keep dreaming.”
You know that I’m a guy, right? Or did you think I was one of those delicate ladies who you seem to enjoy threatening on the internet?
Cracker, I originally though you were going to be a simple drive-by troll, but you’ve really put a lot of effort into this. I salute you. Keep it up, and you may earn yourself a place in Ami’s “Magyc: the Gendering” deck, which is high praise indeed.
BTW, I prefer the term “fellowpian”.
Now it’s gone from “split” to “cut”. Still not seeing a productive conversation here. Don’t feel like arguing the basic definitions of words with someone who keeps changing them.
Crack Emcee Oh – and one more thing – I was thinking about this line again, and I think it explains you perfectly:
““People who talk, are generally more bluff and bluster than actual bully-boys”
In your world, people don’t hit, so of course you can lie, be condescending, irrational, etc. – you have no restraints on your behavior – which is the way you want it. You scream “abuse” at anything that could get in your way.
Son… this is where the rubber meets the road, and your lack of wits comes back to haunt you.
I am the one who said that. You think you know my world, because I post here. A few minutes with google would have told you “my world” is one where hitting people is common. Where shooting people is par for the course. Where violence is part of the actual job description.
Sixteen years in the Army. As an interrogator. I’m retired (medically) combat vet. I know from violence. I grew up in East LA. I’ve known from violence a long time. I know all about hitting. I’ve had people swing at me for things I’ve said. It goes with the territory. But I’ve had a lot more look at me, and get sniffy, and butt-hurt, and make like they were going to hit me. and then slink away; than have screwed their courage to the sticking point and actually done it.
So go on, keep up the ranting. It’s the internet, you don’t have to look at me, face to face, and actually cope with me. If we were face to face, I’d say the same thing. You are a fool, and an idiot, and if I were you I’d be embarrassed to have such half-assed logic, and pathetic whining coming out of my mouth, so I’d hide behind a pseudonym too.
Johhny Pez: He’s got a blog; it’s precious. Sadly, this seems to be his best game he’s bringing to the party.
Pecunium,
“Personally, I don’t care if you’ve hit anyone. I’m not going to take you at your word that you’ve not hurt anyone.”
You guys are interesting. A simple Google search would tell you who I am, but, I guess, you all are too slow to try that one. You’d rather assume, since that seems to be the modus operandi around here.
“Take, for example, the one about your being good with words. It’s not so. If “narcissistic bitches and manginas” is all you can think to say in the face of the lies and libels you think we have committed.”
Um, I referred – specifically – to the condescension on this thread when I said “narcissistic bitches. Not the “lies and libels”. Manginas is the term used in the post. Which is harder for you: reading or comprehending?
Snowy,
“Are you dead? Are you a zombie?”
No, I am proof you don’t know what you’re talking about, which could be construed as “your worst nightmare.”
Johnny Pez (my new pal),
“Cracker, I originally though you were going to be a simple drive-by troll, but you’ve really put a lot of effort into this.”
Not really. Coffee, computer, idiots. Viola!
Plymouth,
“Now it’s gone from “split” to “cut”. Still not seeing a productive conversation here.”
No, because you all must have blood! There must be blood! Damn it, no one said there was blood, but blood there must be! Otherwise your whole proposition falls apart.
Anything but addressing the lies and assumptions you’ve already told and made.
Pecunium,
“I’d hide behind a pseudonym too.”
I’m not hiding – I’m a known quantity. The Crack Emcee is a “stage name,” you ditz.
What is “Pecunium” by comparison? I repeat:
Ever heard of “projection”?
Crack… I went to your blogs. The one you decided was a cell, when Blogger made people click through a warning, the the one you are pathetically grateful to Ann Althouse for supporting.
I don’t see any link to your real name. I don’t see any photos of you. I don’t see anything about you, personally. I see a lot of economiums, from fellow travellers, but so what. And yeah, I’ve heard of projection. I’ve also seen a lot of, “Yes, you are, but what am I” in other contexts.
You said people here had lied, and libelled your mother. You said you’d challenge them duels if you could. Then the best of your clever repartee was something NWOslave could have come up with, and less witty than things MRAL has said.
You made excuses for a guy who didn’t have the courage to do what (little) needed to be done to see his daughter. You think being cut doesn’t bleed, a split lip isn’t violent and that being hit with boards is the act of a doting mother; whom no one could fairly call abusive.
Well, your insistence that she wasn’t, reads just like the people who told you your wife wasn’t a bad person.
Face the facts man, be an adult. Or don’t. It’s no skin off my nose that you want to hide from one truth while you parade on about “New Age” evils and the horrors of Obama. Your delusions, your problems.
Hah! You have coffee? Luxury! I have to drink a cup of lukewarm water with bits of brown crayon sprinkled in!
crayon…. Shit… I’m re-using yesterday’s dirt.
We used to DREAM about brown crayons.
Pecunium,
“Crack… I went to your blogs. The one you decided was a cell, when Blogger made people click through a warning, the the one you are pathetically grateful to Ann Althouse for supporting.
I don’t see any link to your real name. I don’t see any photos of you.”
Wow – you can’t read and you’re blind. You can’t see the photo there? How did you ever get into the military with those deficiencies? And, in order to discover my real name, you could click the bio, or – as I said – go to Google. There it is on the fourth link down:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=the+crack+emcee&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Please, as a fellow vet, I have to ask you to stop looking so dumb.
It matters to me.
My mother also hit me, emcee, and it was abuse. Your mother’s actions were also abuse. Ball’s actions were also abuse. Stop trying to normalize violence against children. The fact that abuse is sadly common does not make it okay.
This is a good one:
“you are pathetically grateful to Ann Althouse for supporting.”
Before, I had a problem with lots of women, now it’s pathetic women support me.
Like I said, you guys couldn’t make sense if you tried.
Crack… read that again… it wasn’t her I called pathetic. I said you, were pathetically grateful.
As to your feeling badly about my being a vet…. the feeling is reciprocal, suck it up and drive on.