An alert reader pointed me to this amazing “map” from the 1830s, posted on Ptak Science Books and originally found here. Described as “A Map of the Open Country of a Woman’s Heart,” it presents a less-than-flattering picture of the supposed shallowness, vanity and selfishness of the female of the species. Click on the pic above to see it full size.
It’s amazing how closely this resembles so many Manosphere “critiques” of evil modern women; the main difference is that it’s a bit more polite in its language. Also, no mention of stinky vaginas.
Manospherians love to talk about “taking the red pill,” as if their ideas are all new and cool and Matrixy. Actually, of course, their ideas are old as fuck. It’s more like they are taking a gulp of Dr. Flimflam’s Electro Magnetic Misogyny Fluid.
Below, another amazing picture also found on Ptak, which presents data on where women’s eyes linger when looking at men. (Again, click on it to see it full size.) I suspect this one would be a bit more confounding to the Manospherians of today, in that it doesn’t show women looking only at the dude’s wallet. The post on Ptak offers a more detailed explanation of what this picture is about.
Oh, the internet really needs to stop thinking you can godwin white supremacy. Bring on the Hitler refs for that.
Cause… Seriously. You can’t Godwin white supremacy.
Chuck Norris can Godwin white supremacy.
Anyway, can I still keep my British boyfriend? He’s white, after all, so he can pass as one of us, but I know his family plan to invade the country. (And they have made matching T-shirts to that effect, which makes them more organized than MRAs)
Regarding the design of the NCF, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. If it doesn’t look old, it’s not reliable. And on the internet, old means ugly.
Sorry, I meant David Futrelle can Godwin white supremacy, obviously.
I suppose Hawaii would seem like the most evil place on earth to a racist. Not only is there omg race mixing everywhere you look, but most people tend to be kind of mellow and happy! They don’t even have the decency to be as unhappy as he is!
(I like Hawaii, can you tell?)
So to an MRA the most evil places on earth are as follows – Hawaii (land of perfect weather, great food, and surfing), Sweden (omg evil feminist socialist furniture!), and San Francisco (come for the food, stay for the gay bars and the Folsom Street Fair). Places that only a miserable asshole who hates life could dislike.
It’s kind of funny that Meller is all Heil Deuchland, though. I’m guessing he’s never actually been there, given that it’s almost as leftist and full of feminists as Sweden. Has anyone broken it to him that German people tend to be kind of blunt? Because if he thinks we say mean things to him when he gets into one of his rants, I would love to see him try something similar in a coffee shop in Berlin.
Now here’s a dilemma for Meller. Like hellkell, my ex is Asian, and I’m white. Right now I have an excellent relationship with him – I’ll be having dinner with him later today, actually – but under the Meller Plan for Fixing Society I suppose I would be required to reject him and be rather unkind to him. But wait! Aren’t women who’re nasty to their exes the bane of the existance of the MRM? If the Meller Plan was to lead to me vigorously rejecting my ex and refusing to have anything to do with him, wouldn’t that turn me from a woman who’s nice to her ex and doesn’t ask him for any money, etc., to the sort of evil hellspawn that the MRM wants to eliminate?
If your racist plans force me to be nasty to my ex I’m holding you responsible, Meller. This is what happens when you don’t think things through.*
*Obviously I’m not actually going to be mean to my ex just because some racist lunatic tells me to do so on the internet. No exes were harmed in the creation of this comment.
Also! My ex is usually read as Asian, so that’s how he identifies, but his family tree contains ancestors from all of the following groups – Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, English. If we were to do the whole separating people out into groups thing, which newly created township based on ethnicity does he go live in? Where do we send Keanu Reeves (Hawaiian, English, and Chinese)? What about Seal and Heidi Klum’s kids?
>>Beseiged White People could be an Oi! band…
A RAC band. And the typo in ‘Besieged’ would actually make it more likely to be a RAC band than it being typed properly.
CassandraSays, hellkell,et al.
Who says that ethnicity would be the only, or even the main, criterion upon which separation by groups would take place. In EVERY occasion where I discussed the subject, group affiliation of the households–itself a very ambiguous and “diverse” standard–is only ONE of the basis upon which households would affiliate, geographically and otherwise.
Communities often align themselves upon lines of commonality, which include, but are not limited to, ethnicity. They can also be aligned upon age, with young adults (with or without children), older people, religious views, or lack of same, access to resources (access to teachers or tutors would be important to young adults with children, access to doctors and healthcare professionals to people in the older years of their lives, and so on…
Your talking about race and racism is making a mountain out of a fairly small and insignificant molehill.
As far as Germany is concerned, I KNOW that it is almost as infested with feminists as Sweden. After WWII, they were occupied by The USSA, the UK, and the then USSR, and the feminism polluting the victors’ cultures,newsmedia, and academic structures naturally spread to occupied victims, not only Germany, but Italy and Japan as well. Like the United States, it is going to take a while for Europeans (and Japanese) to wake up but it is slowly happening, and when the awakening takes effect, it may be all the more powerful for being delayed a generation or two! Most men’s advocacy websites and blogs seem to be American, but it is only a matter of time before our fellow sufferers from fempower and gynecocracy-run-amok turn on our exploiters!
If it makes you manboobzettes any happier, I suspect that men of ALL races–and the normal women who love us–will eventually engage the sisterhood from hell in a more-or-less unified struggle! Unity against common adversaries is something that even men–of all races–have shown ability! You heard it here first!
If communities did ‘align themselves upon lines of commonality’ Meller, then where would your community be?
Seriously. I don’t know anyone that would be thrilled to have you as part of their community. I don’t think you have much in common with anyone. Hell, even the other racist misogynists would probably take issue with you.
So what? It’s just going to be you, alone on the outskirts of society?
I heard it here first, now can someone explain it to me so I can understand where “something that even men” fits into this? Have people been making grandiose claims about the inability of men to work together while i was sleeping?
Meller: What if a person who isn’t “like us” wants to move into the area?
Will the businesses just refuse to take their money? Will they be driven off their property?
It takes force. You have been praising systems in which the government used force. I can’t see why you (who are so keen about keeping the black and brown and asian and female) types from being equal to you would refuse to accept the use of force; since you’ve been willing to praise it.
As to the struggle… good luck with that. The oxymoronic underpinnings of your complaints will doom you to being no more effective than The Order, or the SLA. There will be no vast uprising of “the Common Man” because the common man has already spoken; that’s why you are so painfully aware of your minority status.
That, and your movement can’t even get anyone to show up to a get together in DC, even the “Million Man March” managed to get people to show up.
Pecunium–simple good manners indicate that you don’t go where you are uninvited and unwanted! This applies to all people everywhere, whether you are black, white, purple, green, brown, or polka dotted!
Jim Crow and Apartheid used force, and far from praising them, I praised efforts to invalidate their aspects which had no useful purpose in the protection of property, and were simply enforced (good word there, hey) to humiliate the other party(ies).
You also have the free market, with its assorted demands for division and specialization of labor, putting a definite upper limit upon the degree of separation enjoyed by sundry households, businesses, churches, etc in any particular location or circumstance! If people in area A wished to avoid trousers produced by people in areas D, G, and TT, that would be one thing, if they were willing to either produce trousers themselves, or buy them from others elsewhere, but if the people of area A wished to go without water, because only area A had the kind of water they would be willing to drink, I could see problems with A’s viability and sustainability arising fairly quickly, even if their water had to be purchased from people whom the A’s hated!
Unrestricted commerce can do wonders in ameliorating hostilities, not all the time, but quite frequenty.
Everyone has a right to complete sovereignty over his own property, and a right to defend said property against trespassers, vandals, or invaders, or to hire, retain, rent, or appoint defence agencies to do this professionally, again, if it makes you feel better, whatever their race, religion, or gender! Hopefully, for a more civilized outcome, the management and staff of these defence agencies would be closely affiliated with those who are expert in conflict arbitration and resolution, but the demand for acceptance, or ownership of OTHER PEOPLES’ PROPERTY is what could be, and ought to be resisted. The politics of the clenched fist and the begging bowl notwithstanding.
It doesn’t “take force” to persuade people to do this in a free society. All it takes is appreciation of the Golden rule–“do unto others and you would have others do unto you” Even thieves and vandals would rather NOT have THEIR property or residences compromised or destroyed by unwanted troublemakers! If it took force, those who were specialized in handling and applying it–according to agreed upon rules–would be retained to do so, and the extra costs would be assessed against the aggressors!
‘Nuff said!
But you would totally excuse that force if they were provoked, right Meller? Kind of like how commenters on a blog deserve a beating?
You’re an authoritarian, racist, sexist monstrosity.
Ok, you’ve lost me. Your plan is to ask black people to go back to Africa, and to thieves to stop stealing? It’s a nice plan and all, but,… Never mind, I’m completely okay with this plan failing.
“All it takes is appreciation of the Golden rule–”do unto others and you would have others do unto you””
You first. How about you treat women the way you want women to treat you?
I also take exception to the many posts which suggest that somehow my posts are less than libertarian–even anarchistic. On the contrary, not only does every post offer non-statist methods of securing person, property, and liberty, but I should think that , rightly understood, it would make the emergence of a state almost impossible. Long before any conflict Resolution/arbitration agency could asssume the monopoly position over a (large) area, with many thousands, if not millions of sovereign families, following many different traditions, customs, and folkways it would “step on” a great many toes! Its actions would alienate and offend a great many paying customers, who would all desert in droves for more compatible and professionally astute agencies. Ditto for “constabulary”, “insurance” and other such businesses. Not only am I excellently libertarian, as the term is currently understood, zhinxi, et al, but I think that my suggestions would effectively and permanently “government-proof” the society at large!
Households ought to be sacrosanct! One reason, among many others, why I looked askance against the intervention of outsiders in cases of alleged spousal or child abuse in some posts of mine elsewhere. I think that victims deserve support and protection, but not at the expense of liberty and property of everyone else!
We Americans now live in a barbarous state where heavily armed police, SWAT teams, armed welfare services, FBI or Homeland Security goon squads routinely smash doors, trash the house, terrorize the residents (who are TAXPAYERS, NOT contractual customers), and often themselves commit acts of violence, assault, or even murder far worse than what they are supposed to protect the citizenry from!
These atrocities, and others like them, are largely excused and ignored by the newsmedia, attributed to “domestic violence”, drugs, or some other hyped up “menace”, and are then rubber stamped with approval by the “courts”, if there are any hearings at all!
I don’t want this, or anything like this, to happen in my alternative society, which is why Households, and Families, are fundamentally protected from ANY outside intervention. Families (and their neighbors have, and ought to have, EVERY right to resist invasion from uniformed goon squads, thugs, and jackbooted government( or pseudoprivate) terrorists attacking them and their property!
I just had a hilarious image of DKM walking up to random women and staring at them with a vacant. painted-on smile
Meller: Pecunium–simple good manners indicate that you don’t go where you are uninvited and unwanted! This applies to all people everywhere, whether you are black, white, purple, green, brown, or polka dotted!
So… you admit to not having simple good manners? Or do you think you are invited and wanted here?
More to the point… who determines the “unwanted” part? I thought you believed in individual liberty, not collectivist restrictions?
Jim Crow and Apartheid used force, and far from praising them, I praised efforts to invalidate their aspects which had no useful purpose in the protection of property, and were simply enforced (good word there, hey) to humiliate the other party(ies).
Do you really expect me to believe that? You of the “they will be handed over to the houses of entertainment”? The man who thinks that, should feminists not surrender their free will to men like you they deserve to be killed? You who said, I repeat, NOBODY has a right to intrude on another’s territory, property, or home without their consent! Access by those who claim such a right (mostly for what they could never do by themeselves) is not a right, but a govenment sponsored priviilege!, also think that people who want to live someplace should be excluded if other people don’t like it.
That, my dear boy, is a gov’t function. It’s a gov’t privilege, to deny others the right to property.
You, who decried what you think is the result of the loss of sunset towns, and apartheid… in case you wanted to forget (as you do with the laughing at women who die of terrible disease, or the killing off of those who disagree with the vision you want to force on them), this is what you said, Take a look at what happened to the violent crime rate, especially with Whites as the victims, once “sunset towns” were banned in the USA, and once “apartheid” (trans. “separate development”) disappeared in South Africa in 1994.
That’s praising the result of those laws. It’s bemoaning the effects of them not being in existence. When those blacks were able to what they wanted with their property, you bemoaned it. You praise the time when they were denied the right to live with whites. That’s praise of gov’t.
That’s you David K. Meller, praising liberty restricting, property denying acts of gov’t.
Pretend all you like that all you are praising is, “the effects” but without the force that gov’t provided, there could be no such effect. Well, there could; it would be the rule of King Mob, and that violence you say you hate; that part where one person denies another the right to exist, or use property which belongs to them.
but if the people of area A wished to go without water, because only area A had the kind of water they would be willing to drink, I could see problems with A’s viability and sustainability arising fairly quickly, even if their water had to be purchased from people whom the A’s hated!
And if people A decided to require people’s B/C/D, etc. to give up liberties and property because A was limiting access to the water? You’d be fine with that.
Might suck to be in Peoples B/C/D, etc. Good thing you are certain that People of Color (who outnumber you, worldwide; and who were well in advance of Europe, prior to Europe developing gunpowder and centralised Govt’… The latter of which Europe lost [sort of], for some time after the Fall of Rome, and the former of which is now worldwide), won’t end up in Group A.
Everyone has a right to complete sovereignty over his own property, and a right to defend said property against trespassers, vandals, or invaders, or to hire, retain, rent, or appoint defence agencies to do this professionally, again, if it makes you feel better, whatever their race, religion, or gender!
If it makes me feel better? I don’t give a shit what pretty phrases you dress your bigotry in. You don’t actually believe what you say here. You think women, and People of Color are worth less than you are, and deserve to be subjugated. It’s plain in the dog-whistles you use, and the telling phrases like, “if it makes you feel better”.
And any number of rationalisations can be extended from the idea of Jesus Golden Rule. One can justify slavery (“I’d love to have someone else take care of me, feed me, clothe me, house me, all in exchange for work I’d have to do anyway; and probably less work than I’d have to do. I’ve read just such writings on slavery).
Hopefully, for a more civilized outcome, the management and staff of these defence agencies would be closely affiliated with those who are expert in conflict arbitration and resolution, but the demand for acceptance, or ownership of OTHER PEOPLES’ PROPERTY is what could be, and ought to be resisted. The politics of the clenched fist and the begging bowl notwithstanding.
And what, in Mellibertopia, prevents me from hiring a band of bully-boys to compel others? Nice barn you got there, be shame if anything were to happen to it, doncha think?
You couldn’t stop me from doing that. You admit to not having it in you. You profess to abhor violence. I don’t. If I were of a mind to engage in a protection racket in your Libertarian Paradise, you’d have to hire people to stop me. You might be able to. You might not. Think about it. If I’m not threatening them, only you… why should they stick their necks out? If I’m willing to kill them, and all you have to offer is gold… what good is gold to a corpse?
If I’ve got friends, you’re screwed.
It doesn’t “take force” to persuade people to do this in a free society. All it takes is appreciation of the Golden rule–”do unto others and you would have others do unto you” Even thieves and vandals would rather NOT have THEIR property or residences compromised or destroyed by unwanted troublemakers! If it took force, those who were specialized in handling and applying it–according to agreed upon rules–would be retained to do so, and the extra costs would be assessed against the aggressors!
Who compels me to pay? What if I come in, with my banditti, take your goods, despoil your crops, burn your houses, and leave? Will your friends ride after me? Will they know how? Will they pursue in the face of ambush?
You have the Golden Rule flipped, it’s not really sustainable to do unto others what you would have done to you. I’d love Bill Gates to give me half of what he owns. But I can’t afford to do that for anyone else. We will both starve (this is why I favor progressive taxation). What you want is for people to not do what they would not want done.
But your, “vandals” they don’t care. What they want is to have stuff. They are willing to use force to get it, and gamble that they have enough might to keep someone else from taking it. If you don’t want to give up your stuff, they don’t care. They can beat you, or kill you, or (should you prove to be a hard nut to crack), move on to find an easier target.
You, howevere, are stationary. The next group (or the same one, when they get more people) will come along, and you have to either buy them off (some Danes will leave, some won’t), or drive them off. That’s a drain on your resources.
You need to be organised, and have a plan, and people who can execute it; and a reason to take the risks. We call that gov’t. It can be small, it can be large, but if you can’t be completely self-sufficient, against all comers, you will have to be acting in concert with others. If you are going to be more than a fortified hamlet, there will need to be co-ordination with other groups. The next thing you know, you have a state.
Funny how it seems to be organic, and consistent.
‘Nuff said!
Kyrie–February 1, 2012 @4:07pm
I have NEVER “asked black people to go back to Africa”, not here, not on Stormfront.org, or anywhere else! Learn to read posts before criticizing them. The only point that I have made is that (black) people have no more right than anybody else to somebody else’s property! I don’t see how this applies any more (or less) to black people in America than it does to White people here, or to black people in Africa (who I should say, have the same rights as anyone else to exclude uninvited or unwelcome intruders, whatever their race, creed, color, and so on…
You may want to notice that black people in the pre-civil-rights South had no reciprocal rights to exclude whites (including hostile white Cops or KKK) from THEIR businesses, police and other government “services”, and their neighborhoods, which is a centerpiece of my separate and peaceful principles. The civil rights movement may have taken a very different, and less turbulent turn, if black rights to autonomy, self-protection, and sovereignty were–along with Whites–universally upheld.
Would the Montgomery bus boycott have even taken place if there were any number of Black owned and operated surface transit services willing to take paying passengers who could sit anywhere they pleased? Would young Emmet Till have been murdered in Mississippi in 1955 if the Klansmen who murdered him knew( along with everyone else) that their lives wouldn’t be worth a plugged nickel after they had invaded the black section of town to do harm and were summarily stopped, disarmed, and either sent back on their way with their tails between their legs, or given a bit of well deserved “popular street justice” then and there by outraged black homeowners defending their households and citizenry?
Little or nothing here about government, nothing about blacks moving back to Africa, and everything about “stout walls make for good neighbors”!
Meller: I also take exception to the many posts which suggest that somehow my posts are less than libertarian–even anarchistic.
Take all the exception you like. Umbrage is free. Acceptance, on the other hand, requires you to stop saying things which require gov’t (and a pretty authoritarian and invasive one, which restricts the liberties of vast swathes of people).
On the contrary, not only does every post offer non-statist methods of securing person, property, and liberty,
No, it doesn’t What is on offer is lots of handwavium, and words that other libertarians use. I should think that , rightly understood, it would make the emergence of a state almost impossible.
Right… if we only understood how right you are, we’d admit how right you are.
Long before any conflict Resolution/arbitration agency could assume the monopoly position over a (large) area, with many thousands, if not millions of sovereign families, following many different traditions, customs, and folkways it would “step on” a great many toes! Its actions would alienate and offend a great many paying customers, who would all desert in droves for more compatible and professionally astute agencies.
And… what prevents the agency from taking charge? The problem, as they say, with mercenaries, is they may decide to rob the paymaster (look to the conditterri in Italy, ca. 1600, perhaps you might like to read “The Prince”).
We Americans now live in a barbarous state where heavily armed police, SWAT teams, armed welfare services, FBI or Homeland Security goon squads routinely smash doors, trash the house, terrorize the residents (who are TAXPAYERS, NOT contractual customers), and often themselves commit acts of violence, assault, or even murder far worse than what they are supposed to protect the citizenry from!
I agree, but you’ve not shown any system (apart from wishful thinking) which will fix that. Get rid of gov’t and let the Market fix it is stupid, because people who have the things others value, will use those things to take charge.
I don’t want this, or anything like this, to happen in my alternative society, which is why Households, and Families, are fundamentally protected from ANY outside intervention
By what?
Really, by what? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What power will keep those who have guns, water, control of the roads, from using them, and enslaving your, “Sovereign Households”?
Not a thing, because you would knock down all the laws to get at the Devil, and when he turn on you, what will save you then?
Meller: I have NEVER “asked black people to go back to Africa”, not here, not on Stormfront.org, or anywhere else! Learn to read posts before criticizing them.
Nope, you’ve just said you’d be happy if everyone else forced them to leave.
The only point that I have made is that (black) people have no more right than anybody else to somebody else’s property
And you define, as property, the right of association. If people don’t want to live near some group, they have the right to exclude them, totally.
I don’t see how this applies any more (or less) to black people in America than it does to White people here,
Yes you do. You think men have the right to rise up and kill feminists.
Little or nothing here about government, nothing about blacks moving back to Africa, and everything about “stout walls make for good neighbors”!
And you’d be perfectly happy if those walls were at the edge of the continent. If someone lacked the “good manners” to leave when everyone else didn’t like them there… well shit happens.
Keep fucking that chicken, Meller.
Let’s assume I’m wrong, and you don’t want to send back people of color to the continent of origin of their ancestor.
All right.
What do you want then? Who are the uninvited people, who decide they’re uninvited and where do they go?
(bonus question: what happen if they don’t go on their own?)
s. Not only am I excellently libertarian, as the term is currently understood, zhinxi, et al, but I think that my suggestions would effectively and permanently “government-proof” the society at large!
,…
Meller, serious question, when was the last time you talked to a libertarian that wasn’t on some white supremacist, conspiracist, or MRA site, other than, I dunno… me? What makes you so sure you’re excellently libertarian? XD
Nothing about Pecunium’s post precludes government from being perverted into the very mechanism of exploitation that he decries–and attributes to the private sector. Indeed, that seems to be what always happens. At least my suggestions, whether you “believe in them or not”, offer a strong likelihood for different scenarios.
My suggestions of “houses of entertainment” for sexually active women who found monogamy and marriage oppressive or boring was an attempt to give them opportunities to do what they were inclined to do naturally anyway. This would be enhanced considerably if one considered that their activities would be “legal” and hence not subject to corruption by “law-enforcement” or “prohibitionist” authorities and agencies.
I don’t think that offering women a chance to do, and to become expert in, an activity that they wanted to do anyhow, is coercive in any way. When challenged, I immediately clarified that nobody HAD to participate in Houses of Entertainment, and that women could pursue any other plans that they wanted to, subject to their being responsible for the consequences of their own actions–like any men!
Pecunium, you can believe me or not in discussing the content of my posts! All I can say is if your disbelief leads you to doubt what I say, than you are discussing something altogether different, which I have nothing to do with, and have nothing to really say about. If, upon reading, for example, that you wrote a post describing your extremely unpleasant impressions of a “red wasp”, and I said that I don’t believe you and you elsewhere wrote that “mammary cacti were fascinating” and that therefore your aversion to red wasps was imaginary or untrue, i would be discussing an entirely different subject. Maybe you would be correct about that ‘entirely different subject”, maybe you would be wrong, but it would be entirely different!
At no time did I suggest that women be forced to join Houses of Entertainment”. At no time did I , despite your repeated assertions, indicate that I wanted women generally to “die of cancer in agony”, I wrote those words to give feminists a taste of their own medicine, and the outrage that resulted showed that I had succeeded. I wanted to show them how repulsive sadistic mutilation was, whether Lorena Bobbitt, Sharon Osborne, or anybody else. Mission accomplished, as far as I was concerned. In a subsequent post, I apologised for any misunderstanding that this may have inflicted upon the feelings of cancer sufferers or their families and that is that!
What would prevent somebody from hiring a bunch of bullyboys from committing acts of extortion against other people? You (and the bullyboys) for starters, would be responsble for any and all damages caused by you–and them. Property is sacrosanct, and I don’t think that getting any sort of a reputation among peaceful, decent, hard-working people of starting fights, arson, and thuggery would do you–or your hirelings–any good. Don’t forget, the people who would be retained to deal with you are called “conflict resolution/arbitration agencies, for want of something better. Even a hint of POSSIBLE thuggery, e.g. casual association with unruly types–one more reason why rules of access and occupancy would be very carefully upheld for EVERYBODY–would set off opportunity alarms from not only MY agency, but everybody else’s, that there is trouble afoot, and there are troublemakers skulking about. Long before any extortion, kidnapping, arson, or what have you could take place, you, Pecunium, couldn’t fart in the middle of Siberia without everyone knowing about it, and you, along with your companions would be politely–or not so politely–disinvited from the society. Add to this, nothing travels faster than bad news, and gossip is no exception. You, and your bullyboys were expelled from Mellertopia, under VERY suspicious circumstances. No other place will have you, not to sell you food or water, not to rent you (or your companions) rooms, not to provide you with medical care or firearms, and so on..
If it makes you feel any better, it won’t make the difference of a snowflake in hell if you (and your bullyboy companions/invaders/terrorists) are white, black, green, yellow, polkadot, or anything else! This would be as completely a NON-RACIST environment as you could imagine!
I also would say that all of the Conflict-resolution agencies, and perhaps their investigative and defence services (if needed) would not be shy about letting everyone know about you to appeciate what happens to troublemakers in Mellertopia, whether I “believe in” violence or not! It wouldn’t do you any good, but such knowledge might spare future bullyboys a lot of grief in the pursuit of very modest gain!
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
And by “currently understood” considering the massive evidence of your time warp, what’s the current understanding? XD