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.
But Dixon: I did click on your profile. You made fun of me because I didn’t do it as thoroughly as you thought I ought.
But you didn’t have the integrity to return the favor, even that much. You didn’t have the “drive to win” to do it a little better than I did (to late now) and show me up.
So you are whistling in the dark, because the thing is, you (nor we) get to declare victory, the other people who look at it will judge one set of actions, and words, against the other, and make a judgement. They are the referees and umpires.
I’m not really worried about the objective observers. I’ve got a pretty good idea of how the two sides of the actual arguments (as opposed to the rhetorical posturing) play out.
In the meanwhile, carry on.
I’m a lying liar who lies AND I’m cruel xDD This gets better and better xD
Also he ttlly dodged Kirby xD
I need to go or I’ll be late for a shopping date xD But plz elaborate on what you meant about me and my cards 😀 Your obsession w/ them rly intrigues me, and I want to know more 😀 (do you want to know more? *clicks yes*) :3 I’ll be back to read it 😀 (or am I lying? :O )
Geez, I thought this thread was dead.
The Crack Emcee: Sorry that I read the story about your mother’s behavior as you saying “Now THAT’s abuse.” You didn’t say that you were abused as a child, and I shouldn’t have assumed that you needed sympathy for your story. However, regardless of your situation and how you feel about it, I can’t support an adult hitting small children in the face for any reason. But that’s just me. And also the law.
Sorry also if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make by bringing up your murderer wife and her female friends who supported her. I still don’t quite understand the point you were trying to make with that detail-light story, but I don’t need to, I guess.
Re. this quote: “My wife had never been hit and she killed three people. Hmmm. One could gather that a childhood without clear limits leads to a sense of entitlement that can be harmful to others. ”
What makes you assume that hitting a child is the only way for a parent to establish clear limits or raise a child without a harmful sense of entitlement? My parents taught me to respect other people, and I was never hit — in the face, anyway. (I got the occasional spanking.) But I’ve met many men in prison who were (what they identify as) abused as young children, presumably for “valid” reasons. Cigarette burns for asking questions. Lashes with a belt for not going to bed when asked. Now, the last time I made an assumption, you didn’t like it. But I gotta say that to me it looks like one can’t draw the clear line you’re trying to draw between extremely harsh punishment of a child and that child’s grasp of clear limits as an adult.
Pec,
You didn’t take any time to see if the person (i.e. me) who said that might have some ideas about the things you said weren’t “in [my] world.”
Again – why should I? That’s a cute trick you play there, switching between “our,” “we,” and “I” when it suits you:
Dixon: You made assumptions about our lives; Said we didn’t know about violence, etc. Said I wouldn’t be willing to say the things I’d said in real life. Here, I’ll help you out…
You’re sure to get me that way, that’s for sure. I mean, little ol’ me can’t be expected to do a search for every profile I encounter in this group pile-on of a clusterfuck, can I? So you’ve got me: I didn’t look for you, I didn’t look for Ami, I didn’t look for Plymouth, or Pez – but you, alone, did look for me and then claimed there was no info – including no photo – you gonna be a lawyer when you grow up? Because you’re GOOD. That Pec, boy, he’s a regular Perry Mason, that guy.
I am asking questions about the things you’ve said. You graduated high school in 1980. You say you graduated from San Francisco City College in ’84. So you are boasting about a 2×6, and talking about how much time you spent “seeing the world”, so your rate, and the time you spent on WesPac, or MedPac is relevant.
Ha-ha! Man, you guys LOVE to live off of your assumptions. I am a well-known artist/musician, as well as a vet, so when I say I’ve “seen the world,” I’m not just talking about a 4 year stint in the military.
Also… I can’t find any references to your being married. Makes me wonder.
And you’ve GOT TO HAVE IT, don’t you? Anything but deal with the issues of this thread. You know now I’m not a liar, you know I don’t hide behind a handle, but somehow, you will try to get the information you think will bring me down, right? Now even my marriage is questionable?
Dude, you’re a vet – you’re supposed to be better than this.
Just trying to put the pieces together.
You lie. I’ve engaged in enough of these dialogues to know what you’re up to – this is an attack to try and cover for your own lack of integrity and the wrong-headed assumptions you and the other idiots here tried to project onto me. Don’t bullshit me, dude. Keep it simple, stupid, huh?
But Dixon: I did click on your profile. You made fun of me because I didn’t do it as thoroughly as you thought I ought.
But you didn’t have the integrity to return the favor, even that much.
for the last time – I’m not questioning your service, your marriage, none of that. It is you who decided I hide behind a handle, etc. I’m serious, this place isn’t healthy for you, because you’re not dealing from the top of the deck, which – again – is exactly what I heard about this joint. As a vet, you’re supposed to be better.
One more thing:
if you were “just trying to get the story straight,” you would get out of that stupid defensive crouch, stop trying to find dirt to attack me with, stop questioning what I’m telling you (since it all seems to check out when you do find it) and just ask me something without a challenge behind it. many of you have lied to me, insulted me – whatever you can – while I am here, alone, taking you all on.
If you, Pec, are different, as a fellow vet, then why don’t you act like it?
That’s how normal, non-crazy or deceptive people go about things.
@Crack:
You should probably look at my previous post, where I actually try to get the story straight. You don’t seem to interested in that, just attacking others. Amazing.. Its like you aren’t really being honest here!
Now, kirbywarp, that’s just unpossible! No troll has ever been dishonest! I know for a fact because they all tell me so.
@Crack:
“stop questioning what I’m telling you… and just ask me something”
And you wonder why we don’t take you seriously…
You have this wild hair up your ass that 1: I’m not playing fairly. I made a statement, you tried t apply it t everyone. That’s the switch. I’m just trying to keep your attacks aimed at the rightful targets. No one else here said you were more bluff than action.
And 2: Being a vet doesn’t make anyone a paragon. I’ve treated you at least as well as you’ve treated anyone here. Specifically, you accused me of not knowing what violence was. Of not living in a world where people respond to being offended by hitting people. I told you that was wrong. I looked at your blog. I didn’t bring the things I saw there to this discussion. I limited to what you said here. I looked at it to see what sort of things you write. I was trying to see if this was some specific hot-button topic.
And I didn’t see much to impress me. No clever turns of phrase, no real insights. What I saw was more of the same. Also, to be honest, what I saw was some dishonest use of quotation. You imply (by juxtaposition) that the people talking about your music, are talking about your blogging.
It’s your biography here that I look at when talking about your naval time.
He maintained contact with his dad, though, and the two connected strongly through music; the only “modern” musician the elder Dixon had any time for was Frank Zappa. After getting a G.E.D. from Grant High School, in North Hollywood, Dixon joined the U.S. Navy and traveled the world before attending San Francisco City College for a few years, and settling into the city as a struggling artist and political agitator.
Traveled the world before attending San Francisco City College for a few years.
That bio is only a couple of words different from the LAWeekly article seven years before:
The Crack Emcee was born Louis Troy Dixon 37 years ago in Los Angeles. His mom, from a wealthy Negro family in Chicago, broke it off with Charlie Mingus in order to hook up with Troy’s dad, Alvin Troy Dixon, a drummer with various L.A. jazz bands in the ’50s and ’60s. The couple divorced when Troy was 2, and he lived with his father for a few years — with Maya Angelou as his baby sitter and jazz great Eubie Blake as a frequent visitor to the home. Eventually, Troy was taken in by a foster family, and grew up on 78th and Western in South-Central; Ice T lived half a block away. He maintained contact with his dad, though, and the two connected strongly through music; the only “modern” musician the elder Dixon had any time for was Frank Zappa. After graduating from Grant High School in North Hollywood, Dixon fils attended San Francisco City College for a few years before dropping out and settling into the city as a struggling artist and political agitator. He eventually went on to work with industrial agitators Consolidated and Franti’s cult band the Beatnigs.
So, you spent, “a few years” and dropped out., but your facebook page says you graduated in ’84. It’s a two year school, and you’ve said you traveled the world before you went there. You graduated from Grant in 1980.
So you spent a few years between 1980, and 1984 at San Francisco City; before you graduated, or you dropped out. In that time you also joined the Navy and traveled the world.
It’s not that I want think you a liar, it’s just that what you’re saying has some anomalies. As an interrogator I was trained (and trained others) to spot anomalies. Now I’m just trying to clear them up.
So, was it the mother who divorced your father who was beating you? Or the foster parent? How long were you in the Navy (and where did you go). Did you graduate SFC, or not? How long is “a few years”.
Why hasn’t your wife been mentioned in any of the readily findable information on you? When did these three killings take place?
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you used it all up by telling us things that don’t match other things.
Bee,
The Crack Emcee: Sorry that I read the story about your mother’s behavior as you saying “Now THAT’s abuse.” You didn’t say that you were abused as a child, and I shouldn’t have assumed that you needed sympathy for your story. However, regardless of your situation and how you feel about it, I can’t support an adult hitting small children in the face for any reason. But that’s just me. And also the law.
Another concession – I’m starting to like you guys! – and one of the points of me being here is to say the law should be changed. Kids belong to parents – not the state, not feminism, and not you, no matter how you feel about hitting children. They are not yours.
What makes you assume that hitting a child is the only way for a parent to establish clear limits or raise a child without a harmful sense of entitlement?
Do you see what you did there? It’s in the words “the only way” – which I never said. A parent should have the right to bring up their child without the rest of you sticking your noses in. You guys have already made enough wrong assumptions, just on this thread, that the point why you should butt out couldn’t be clearer. It’s not your place, you don’t know what’s going on, and your values aren’t others. You can’t be right in this – yet you support and impose laws that enshrines such behavior as mandatory – and then attack and smear anyone who says “No” – including even the dead. Yeah, you should be so proud.
I’m not attacking you now, Bee, but only trying to make the point:
There’s nothing “good” about this. The guys you mention in prison are not the norm and guess what? They’re in prison, so of course it’s Mom and Dad’s fault. It can’t be theirs, right? Guess what? Most of them “didn’t do it” either. You buying that?
I respect your concessions, and thank you for them. I want the all-elusive “common ground” as much as you do, but I will not be toyed with. That’s what I’m known for online, and – just as I have my detractors – I have many, many supporters and friends. I hope we can get closer from here, and want you to know I will do my part when we speak, to remember the honesty you’ve come at me with here.
Take care – it’s a jungle out there,…
I could be wrong now
but I don’t think so!
Cause it’s a jungle out there
it’s a jungle out there
duh duh da da!!!
Wow, did you write that song? You really are a musical genius!
Crack
It’s a bit of a stretch for you to accuse people here of dishonesty, when you’re accusing your wife, [NAME REMOVED –DF], and the guy she seems to have left you for, [NAME REMOVED –DF], of the murder of three people, without volunteering the rather crucial information that this is your belief, which may or may not have merit, rather than a substantive fact backed up by criminal proceedings, or even disciplinary proceedings for medical malpractise. That would be the normal, non-deceptive way of broaching things.
Now I’m not saying that you’re wrong – it’s quite possible that they may be responsible for deaths due to their pseudo-scientific quackery, but it’s going to take much, much more than just your say-so.
Crack: There’s nothing “good” about this. The guys you mention in prison are not the norm and guess what? They’re in prison, so of course it’s Mom and Dad’s fault. It can’t be theirs, right?
So why is it that Ball isn’t to blame for what happened. That’s what you said at the beginning, this wasn’t his fault.
He hit his daughter, her lip was split, and from then on out he quit.
That’s what he did. It’s kind of embarrassing, he did 21 years in the Army, but he wasn’t willing to own up to his actions. He could have done the counseling. He could have faked it, mumbled the magic words and been back with his kids.
He could have been honest, and looked at the situation and evaluated the merits of hitting a four year old for acting like a four year old. He didn’t. He let his wife down. He let his kids down. He let himself down.
If you look at my earlier comments about this, I’ve said he got a slightly raw deal. He shouldn’t have been charged with DV. I don’t know that being charged with child abuse (or endangerment) would have been better, but he was wrongly charged.
He did commit battery. If some slaps someone else, that’s a crime. If you’re not in a place where people are, “looking in their beer” when a fight breaks out, you are going to have to explain to the cops.
If you hit someone else’s kid, and split their lip, you are going to be talking to the cops. If a babysitter is putting the kids to bed, and splits their lip, they are going to be talking to the cops.
Ball isn’t special. He should have been talking to the cops.
But you don’t think so. You want to make excuses, and say, “it wasn’t abuse”. The only way that flies if if one’s own children are somehow not protected from parents doing what would be a crime if anyone else did it.
That’s not right.
Pec,
You are comparing what I’ve said directly, to an online bio, to what reporters write – which do you think is more accurate? You’ve got the broad outline of my life, so – if you’re not just continuing to try and jack me – why is any of it so important to you? (And must I separate quotes about my music from the rest of my endeavors? Why? It’s my fucking blog.) I owe you nothing. But, but, but,…I am not an asshole (as you seem intent on being) so here’s when my wife’s murders were finally discovered – almost 3 years after I knew about the first one – and the authorities asked for my help:
http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-was-married-to-murderess.html
And here’s when it started breaking into the news.
Satisfied?
Dan: thanks.
Dan,
Not only have I provided the links you see above, but I can also show you when [NAME REMOVED –DF] lost his medical practice. The case is not over.
And I am not a liar.
Continuing to try and prove otherwise will get you nowhere.
Pec,
Are you seriously comparing a parent striking his/her child, as a disciplinary measure, to a bar fight?
Really? Really?
Dixon: Who wrote the second one? The one that’s pimping your music? Why is it so close to the one from seven years earlier?
As to keeping the one realm separate from the other.. if I were to use stuff reviews of my poetry to show how great my writing about torture is… that would be dishonest. I see that all the accusations of murder… are in your blog. That your wife ran off with a new age guru explains the focus of your rants, but it doesn’t prove murder.
Where is the arrest? Right, she’s in a foreign country. Where is the extradition request (recall that Polanski couldn’t come out of France because if he did he’d be arrested). There was the guy doctor in France who was wanted for murder in Pennsylvania. That was one murder, and the managed to get him.
Where is the police report, the autopsies? The, you know, evidence?
You came in here, all piss and vinegar, got it splashed right back in your face and then you whine about it? Right manly behavior that.
You want to make claims.. fine. Back them up. Outside sources, not just your accusations. Talk is cheap, evidence is required.
Well, the guys I was working with admitted their crimes and (with varying degrees of success) accepted their responsibility for their actions. That was part of the program, in fact — it was a restorative justice program, where they had to not only take responsibility for their crimes, but also learn about and accept the impacts of their crimes. So, a group member would, for example, not just bear responsibility for the woman that he raped and killed, but understand that that woman had relatives and friends who loved her, a community that was shocked and scared by the crime, that his own family and friends were impacted, that the person who found the body and the police who were called to the crime scene were impacted, etc. And I guess that’s where I’m coming from. None of these guys ever said, “Y’know, if my mom hadn’t burned me with her cigarette butts, I wouldn’t be here.” But I can see that every action has its consequences, and when you’re talking about people who have committed crimes, by and large you’re also talking about people who have been victims themselves. It’s a self-perpetuating thing. And of course that doesn’t excuse anyone who’s committed a crime. It just gives alternative justice folk like me another goal. Not just locking people up once they’ve committed a crime, but trying to get to the beginning of the vicious circle.
I’ve kind of gone beyond the scope of what you were talking about. Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. I disagree with you about some things — this is one of them: “Kids belong to parents — not the state, not feminism, and not you, no matter how you feel about hitting children” — but appreciate the conversation.
Aw crap. I was going to end on that note, but I have to clarify: I don’t think kids belong to me or the state, or their parents. Parents have parental rights, not property rights. Those parental rights are very, very important, and the state must protect them, but children are vulnerable, and vulnerable people should also be protected. To analogize, if my bed-ridden grandma moved in with me, and I started punching her in the face whenever she asked me for a glass of water, I think the police would be right to remove her from my care. Even though she’s MY grandma. The analogy is a little off, since kids are not elders, but I feel like there’s a fine but important line between flat-out mean-spirited mistreatment of people who are not able to protect themselves, and punishment, teaching, and establishing boundaries. And the state has the right to step in where people have stepped over the line.
Crack
I’ve read the DNA articles from last year – he was acquitted at a tribunal in Wissembourg of the charge of delaying the diagnosis and treatment of his patients.
Pec,
There’s a lot of stuff that gets lost in these types of conversations – I got of school with a G.E.D., for instance, so I didn’t graduate in 1980 as you assumed. As I said, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which my experience does inform:
Even in a divorce that involved murders, and cults, etc., I was treated as the bad guy – with accusations of wife beating (which my wife got creamed over) – which should make any man consider what family law is really all about.
Dan,
I repeat: none of this is over. There are things happening, on both sides of the ocean, which still are to be revealed.
Does anybody else feel their hope for humanity slipping away? Its one thing to come on a blog relating tradgedy, its another to misrepresent wild accusations as fact. I feel sorry that I ever felt sorry for this guy… -__-
Crack, obviously you can make whatever accusations you want about specific people on your blog, but not here. If you want to discuss your allegations, don’t use their names. Linking to your blog is fine.
That goes for everyone else discussing Crack’s allegations too. No names.
Crack
The problem that I have is that you start off with the statement: “And finally, my wife killed three people, the first being her own mother…” at 7.00am on 25th June.
You follow up with “My wife had never been hit and she killed three people…” at 10.24am this morning
And now we’re discussing whether the guy that she left you for was responsible for two deaths that, as far as I can determine, according to a pretty skimpy report in Nova, is a charge that he was acquitted of in October last year.
We’ve drifted to the point where there’s no mention of your ex-wife now, let alone murder.
Once again, I’m not saying that you’re wrong – doctors get away with shit – but we’re a long way from where we started.
Dixon: Are you seriously picking only one of those points as salient?
And then expecting me/us to think that refutes the rest?
You say you want to be treated “fairly”. I asked direct questions. I asked them quite awhile back; from pretty much the very beginning. You didn’t answer them, but accused me of being, “defensive.
When discrepancies were pointed out you blamed other people for them. Fine. Clear it up. Answer the questions.
You seem to hold different standards for Thomas Ball than you do for other people. He was the victim; his blame of others was justified, but people who say they didn’t do something you disapprove of… they are just lying.
So… lets look at some of your past hits: Some of the conversation from Althouse on getting married.
The Crack Emcee That’s what I mean about selfish and shallow: just because you want to redefine it doesn’t mean you can.
a·buse (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete To deceive or trick.
“To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.”
You are arguing that smacking a four-year old, hard enough to split a lip, isn’t maltreatment, nor ill-use. That it is ( to look to the first definition) a proper use of the four year old.
You’ve not convinced me (I can’t speak to anyone else) that striking such blows to a four year old, isn’t maltreatment, and abuse. That doesn’t mean I think all corporal punishment is, ipso facto child abuse.
But you are the one who goes on about words having meanings, and individuals not getting to make them up as they like; to make them fit a philosophy. Well we are using the word as it’s defined. Show some integrity man, practice what you preach.
If you’d like to try explaining what the specific aims of a parent are in such a circumstance, and how they tie into a program of character building, and moral formation, feel free. Be sure to back it up with more than just, “it’s what worked for me”, because that’s not gonna cut it.
Show your work.