Men’s Rights Activists and manosphere misogynists love to complain that I “cherry pick” quotes in an attempt to make them look bad. Which makes it especially ironic that all too often when I call them out on some particular bit of bullshit, they more or less double down on that bullshit, reiterating and in many cases amplifying the terrible things they originally said.
Several days ago, I wrote about a Spearhead post from W.F. Price with the priceless title “After 25, Women Are Just Wasting Time.” It was appalling even by Spearhead standards. Price used the untimely death of a talented young writer named Marina Keegan as an opportunity to rehash the belief, widely held in the manosphere, that women over the age of 25 who haven’t managed to snag themselves a “good husband” are “just wasting time,” growing older and uglier and less appealing to men. (Evidently, women’s appeal to men is the only thing that really matters about them.)
Price’s article inspired numerous comments from Spearheaders that were even more grotesquely misogynistic and cruel than his own post; Price at least pretended to care about the dead girl, even though his post was a crass and opportunistic insult to her memory.
And it inspired one regular Man Boobz commenter, a 26-year-old woman, to wade into the muck that is the Spearhead’s comments section to point out that Price’s grand narrative of female decline after age 25 has no relation whatsoever to her own life story:
I’m 26 years old. 27 terrifyingly soon. I am nothing like the person I was when I graduated college.
After originally getting a film degree, I’ve just started nursing school.
I’m living on the other side of the country and loving the different culture here.
I’m dating a wonderful guy who mysteriously didn’t dump me on my 25th birthday.
I’m doing difficult, not always fun, but ultimately socially useful work, work I couldn’t imagine myself doing when I graduated college.Since I graduated college, I’ve read more books, worked on more movies, learned more skills, lifted more weight, traveled more places, marched in more protests, gotten published more times, saved more lives than I thought I ever would.
And I’m still only 26.
You think I’m going to stop protesting and writing and working the wild Saturday midnight shift in the ER before I’m 30? Before I’m 60?
Or do you think it doesn’t matter because I might not be as fuckable then?
Well then fuck you. I’m 26 and I got miles to go.
–
(Oh, and I’m way better at sex now. Guys who thought I hit my “expiration date” just around the time I was first learning what a Kegel was, you are missing out.)
The Spearheaders responded, predictably enough, with downvotes and insults and a lot of mainsplainy comments suggesting that she’s regret it forever if she doesn’t get married ASAP and start popping out children.
The strangest comment of the bunch came from a Spearhead “Shieldmaiden” (that’s what they call female commenters on The Spearhead, for reals) by the name of Andie, who launched into a barely coherent tirade that somehow revolved around, er, SCENTED CANDLES!
Price, after seeing Andie’s rant mocked by the commenters here, decided to feature it today as the Spearhead “Comment of the Week.” So without further ado, here is what Price considers to be the Spearhead community at its best:
@26 year old woman
Let’s see how you feel when you’re 29 and the end of everything possible is right at your doorstep. Hell, lots of women are infertile at 26. Done. You won’t do everything. You won’t be a mother.
And if that doesn’t bother you, darlin’, you ain’t a woman.
And if your plans are to actually BE a mother (as in do the damn work), you are already in very deep water.
Your resume will never put his chubby little arms around you and tell you he loves you, like a child will. Your resume will never give you grandchildren, like your children might. Your resume will never share in all your joys, all your sorrows, all your triumphs, all your tragedies, like your husband will.
But you WILL be able to rape that resume of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS over your lifetime. Yay!
The fastest growing consumer product category: scented candles. SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES.
Yes, 26 year old woman, all your education and opportunity and rights have resulted in millions of children raised without fathers, the total destruction of the family, the rise of GIANT ASS government to give all those wymyns a place to work (doing utterly useless shit) and what was it for? What did we gain?
SCENTED FUCKING CANDLES!!
Nicely done, ladies. Really good job.
Fuck you, bitch. My daughters are coming for you. And millions of daughters just like mine. We see you, you superficial piece of trash. You have cost us our lives. For patchouli candles.
You will pay.
Go back and read @26 year old woman’s comment, then read Andie’s again. Quite a contrast, wouldn’t you say?
I should note that when Price first posted the quote, he evidently left out the last few paragraphs; perhaps even he realized they were a tad over the line as a response to a woman whose only real “crime” was telling the Spearheaders that her life was interesting and fulfilling to her, and that she wasn’t planning on having any babies in the foreseeable future. (And if they didn’t approve of her life, too fucking bad for them.)
In the comments to Price’s “Comment of the Week” post, HL offers this thought:
Every time something like this comes up, it becomes ever more apparent that the ignorance, hate mongering, bigotry and fallacies rests so much more heavily on the side of the feminists.
To paraphrase Rick James, lack of self-awareness is a hell of a drug.
I mean… the only thing that could happen is that the judge won’t show up. It just can’t happen any other way. What happens then? Nolan pronounces the judge guilty by virtue of not showing? The judge is fined gold by the common law court? And then…
There is absolutely no authority that Nolan can turn to to get the judge to pay the fine. *sad trombone*
By the way, another thing I love? That comment on the transcript where Nolan talks about how he gave this mind-blowingly awesome speech, where “no woman within 500 meters wasn’t crying afterwards” or some shit like that, and he got prizes and trophies and so forth because of it. AND IN THAT VERY ROOM he will try the judge in one of the most important trials in history!
Oh man, this would make a brilliant movie as-is. And at the end, there’s no twist; nothing happens.
kirbywarp — it can’t happen any other way under the laws the rest of us use, idk if sovereign citizens think they have the power to force people into court or not, considering I usually only see them committing violence, I don’t really want to ponder how that’d play out.
“Oh man, this would make a brilliant movie as-is. And at the end, there’s no twist; nothing happens.” — something happens alright, his ex gets 83% of his known assets because he refuses to comply with requests to produce his assets. He ruined any chance he had of the judge taking pity on him.
“no woman within 500 meters wasn’t crying afterwards” — you think that’s because his speech was all about how women suck, or because he’d never admit men cry?
And how does Australia have sovereign citizens anyways? I’d thought they were using the 14th amendment of the US constitution, but that actually doesn’t apply to Australians (unlike USian sovereign citizens, who it definitely does apply to) — all their “loopholes” seem to come back to the 14th though, and Australia doesn’t have that, so how do Australian sovereign citizens justify their, um, “logic”?
Huh… I found this fbi website link that describes the government’s take on the Sovereign Citizen movement. They recognize tactics like filming court cases to be posted on the internet, demands for oaths of office from officials, writing names interspersed with colons and copyright signs…
Very interesting reading, seeing the “official” report on the movement.
Then there’s the splc version with this bit.
It’s like actual magic, or alchemy. Just say the right magic words, and you get money! What I don’t get, though, is why they think this shadowy secret evil government conspiracy is held to any sort of law in the first place. What is keeping the government “honest”? What force will coerce the government to give people money once they’ve found the secret code? What set of laws is the government held to, and who enforces those laws? I just… I don’t get it.
@Argenti — The best I can figure, the idea is that the common law governs everybody no matter who they are or where they are. Which is why PANIC can be an expert in wiggling his fingers in Australian courts and expect to be as accomplished at doing the same thing in an Irish court.
kirby — “I just… I don’t get it.” — near as I can tell it’s like any good conspiracy, the less sense it makes, the more right it must be! Occam’s Razor escapes them in other words.
Falconer — using a highly liberal use of “everybody” it does, but USian sovereign citizen’s claim that only common law, not the rest of US law, applies to them, because of a completely backwards reading of the 14th — wtf are the non-USian one’s using to wiggle out from the rest of their country’s laws? I mean, yeah Australia and Ireland (and the US, etc) use the same common law system, but then each of them has centuries of non-common law precedent, I don’t understand wtf basis….never mind, I just don’t understand them, it’s not worth nitpicking over.
I wonder though if they realize that French common law is nothing like English common law? (And that not all of even the US uses pure English common law? The nearly-a-lawyer best friend just shudders at New Orleans, they use a mingle of the two down there I guess?)
I’m pretty sure NWO buys this shit too btw, given, well…NWO Slave. His frikken’ nym is basically saying he’s a slave to “the NWO” which is one step removed from —
“One prevalent sovereign-citizen theory is the Redemption Theory, which claims the U.S. government went bankrupt when it abandoned the gold standard basis for currency in 1933 and began using citizens as collateral in trade agreements with foreign governments” (source is kirby’s FBI link)
What might amuse me most is that they think the gov’n sets a value on everyone’s life at birth — very Gattacca that idea, and assuming the reference makes sense, why it’s amusing should too.
Oh, if only PANIC’s book actually explained things like this, instead of miserable ranting about his evil ex-wife and how she destroyed his company.
Hey — these guys give seminars and sell documents. In one case, a couple of them even sold car insurance (that they didn’t honor). Did they sell them for the “worthless” dollar? Or did they demand gold in troy ounces?
If they bothered to think it through, perhaps they’d decide that the government values everyone’s life equally at birth at a minimum, and then increases that value as the person grows and accomplishes things — so many dollars for graduating high school, so many dollars for better grades, etc., and finally, a consideration of one’s income as it fluctuates during one’s lifetime.
… wait a minute. What do these guys think the government does with your money when you die?
And did anybody else notice that in the transcript PANIC was consistently spelling it guvment?
@falconer
um, asutralia and ireland are both common law countries.
@argenti
american sovereign citizens frequently make recourse to the constitution, but that’s not a necessary part of the formula, this gibberish applies equally to any nation with a common law history. that said, p-a:n(c) loves to invoke america’s founding documents as if they had universal significance (see the first couple sections of his book for examples). and again, he seems to the the uniform commercial code is international law, so basically all kinds of weird ideas about american law
“Did they sell them for the “worthless” dollar? Or did they demand gold in troy ounces?” — considering here in the real world you can buy gold with the dollar, I’m guessing either they or the purchaser exchanged “worthless dollars” for gold
“… wait a minute. What do these guys think the government does with your money when you die?” — you mean your actual money, as in the stuff in your bank account? No fucking clue, they don’t seem to acknowledge the money the rest of us use. If you meant their “strawman” nonsense, then um…well when you are born the gov’n creates some account with a net worth of Gattacca-math and then uhh…uses your life as collateral it looks like? I have no fucking clue in other words, but if I remotely follow, suicide must really hurt the NWO, killing the collateral is never good!
“And did anybody else notice that in the transcript PANIC was consistently spelling it guvment?” — yes, and he consistently refers to the laws the rest of us use as “la-la-land”
sovereign citizens — all the irony
the MRM — all the projection
Combining the two does make for some hilarious reading — “Pleases note the discrimination and ‘appeal to motherhood’. I am merely refered to as MR. P. NOLAN and ‘appears in person’ which is a lie. And Jennier is ‘the respondent mother’. She is a ‘mother’ but I am NOT referred to as a father. This ‘mother worship’ is endless.” — that’s his comment on just —
MR P. NOLAN appears in person
MS S. BEVAN appears for the respondent mother
also, i’m pretty sure his common law trial isn’t happening now, because he hasn’t lived in australia in years and iirc isnt supposed to come back. i haven’t checked in a while but last i heard he was skating the line on getting expelled from germany, and was writing furious letters to angela merkel
When the sovereign citizens like PAN describe their common law courts, it makes me imagine a group of kids with a toy gavel in a treehouse playing court. I don’t know if they would go through with trying to drag people into their fake courts or not. Surely some of them realize that would be kidnapping, but then again you can’t put too much past them. After all, the sovereign citizen movement has a history of violence and crime committed by members who believe themselves to be outside of the jurisdiction of whichever countries they live in.
Sharculese — ok they just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge legal precedent then, whether that could ever make any sense or not is utterly moot. That might make more sense than reading the 14th to say that anyone who doesn’t want to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” isn’t. It does allow some people a sort of opt-out, but it’s Native Americans with tribal sovereignty, not random people going “hey I’m sovereign too!” — I was giving them too much credit thinking they were just reading that absurdly, apparently it’s just another law to twist as they see fit.
lol…all the irony…the US can’t manage to respect tribal sovereignty, why do they think there’s some magic spell that the people the 14th actually exempts haven’t found yet?
If nothing happens, PANC will either have to get lucky or be self-aware enough not to take this sovereign stuff far enough to get him in real trouble (even if he justifies it in a paranoid “the government guvment goons will get me” way). Given the way the judge treated him in court, I suspect he’ll probably give him a pass and just ignore the first (or even first several) wacky bill(s) he gets from this guy for millions of ounces of gold. But if he keeps harassing him about it? The bill from PANC’s made-up court is fraudulent, and I can see him going to a real court for it if he gets belligerent enough.
I’m pretty sure PANC gets all his information and materials from the USian sovereign citizens and never stopped to consider that it might not be applicable elsewhere. He doesn’t talk about the 14th amendment as far as I can tell, but he talks about the UCC a lot, which isn’t any more relevant in Australia than the 14th amendment of the US constitution is.
Also, it seems I gave up on his book too soon. It’s still way too much to slog through, but I did find another gem: Apparently signing things in blue ink means whatever you’re signing is under the jurisdiction of admiralty law. Because water is blue. And black ink means you’re under the UCC, because black is for death, so it means you’re signing for your dead strawman whatever-the-fuck. You have to sign in red ink for it to be under the jurisdiction of the almighty common law (presumably because red is for blood, or something? He doesn’t spell that one out).
Kendra — yeah I want to picture it being him and some friends sitting around complaining the judge didn’t show, but idk, people who believe themselves beyond the law are already one foot out the door (to bastardize a phrase >.< )
@PsychoDan:
I probably should have clarified with the movie idea that nothing would happen with regards to the common law court scene. He’d still get charged with illegal activity and so forth. I was just imagining this big celebratory climax where people are hugging and cheering and applauding Nolan for his brilliant take-down of the evil overlords, then… nothing. No actual change, just a continuation with the actual court.
According to my research, one of the roots of the sovereign citizen movement claimed something along the lines of “since white people aren’t mentioned in the 14th amendment, they aren’t required to be citizens (as opposed to sovereign “Citizens”) the way black people are.” Urgh…
“Apparently signing things in blue ink means whatever you’re signing is under the jurisdiction of admiralty law. Because water is blue. And black ink means you’re under the UCC, because black is for death, so it means you’re signing for your dead strawman whatever-the-fuck. You have to sign in red ink for it to be under the jurisdiction of the almighty common law (presumably because red is for blood, or something? He doesn’t spell that one out).”
Oh is that what red crayon is about? I was wondering wtf the wonderful red crayon ever did to them (lol, long story short, red crayons play a very important role in Emilie Autumn’s psych ward autobiography, being the only thing they’d let her write with, it’s got nothing to do with anything on topic, but it’s why their love of red was annoying me)
And I suspect the answer to why crayons is why EA loved her’s — “because everyone knows you can’t erase crayon”
And if you’re writing in green it means you’re bound to the service of the Forest Wizard. Writing in pencil is only legally applicable in the Demi-Plane of Shadow, and if you’re writing in white you need a new pen.
Here’s a question. Why “admiral law?” Why is that the default way to handle things on land? And what do 9/10ths of US law have to do with ships anyway? Are corporations somehow inherently ships? Is there something about divorce court that has to do with the sea?
I mean, I read that they think stuff like “because flags have a gold fringe on ships, the fact that there is a gold fringe on flags in federal courts means naval law,” but that’s the sort of evidence that you could find no matter what you were trying to prove. What about a driver’s license has anything to do with the sea?!?
kirbywarp — that’s actually the one part that makes any sense — when there’s no other precedent then admiral law does apply, even on land, but it’s so fucking rare for that to happen it’s a joke. The nearly-a-lawyer best friend may be using admiral law to solve a nasty jurisdiction issue (no one wants jurisdiction for the not guilty by reason of insanity client in that case, last I’d heard they were going to try forcing the issue using admiralty law about unclaimed ships because the case is just that much of a mess) — so it does happen, it’s just obscenely rare, certainly not the standard in divorce court or anything. It is legal precedent if no other law applies though.
Of course, mutineers shall be hanged too, so I doubt they want all of admiralty law.
Dracula — what about those milk pens that were all the rage back in the 90s? What does sky blue mean, or purple, or horrid yellow? Or *gasp* pink?!
@Argenti:
Ah, I see. The more you know! ™
I’m gonna have to do more research on this stuff, if only because it’s a gateway into learning about actual law. ^_^
The thing I find funny about the sovereign citizen shit is that they sort of have a point: the law is basically nothing more than a socially constructed performance, the legitimacy underneath it simply rests on everybody agreeing (freely or because the state has big guns) that it is legitimate, etc… and then it seems their mind snap at that point and they go “but there MUST be some sort of transcendent law that’s not all a social construction” and create these elaborate fantasies to fulfill that gnawing need they have for order. It’s not surprising most of them are fundamentalist Christians of some sort, and the few that aren’t have a peculiar view of ‘natural law’ that is peculiar even for extreme libertarians.
@BlackBloc:
I noticed that too. Who or what enforces “common law?” *shrug* But it is something that even the evil government corporation, who somehow circumvents these laws, is subservient to.
I feel like the only compelling idea is how to handle people being held accountable to laws without them specifically agreeing to them. Should you be allowed to hold a person to the arbitrary laws of a society without that person’s consent (because they are babies at the time)?
It doesn’t take long to answer though… Yes. Yes you should, because society couldn’t function otherwise. I think you should be able to revoke said citizenship at any time*, as the sovereigns are sort of trying to do, but not if you still plan on living in the country, having a business, expecting protection under the law, and so forth. This whole absurd notion of accepting the laws you like and rejecting the ones you don’t… things just can’t work that way.
* Practically, the only way this usually happens is by moving to a different country.
I’ve so many questions! (maybe I should call J U? 🙂
What happen is you write in violet? Dark red? Where is the limit?
Why the ‘:’? (Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c))
What happen if I write it ‘Peter-Andrew: Nolan’? Or ‘Peter-Andrew Nolan’? Am I committing a crime or is it valueless?
How does the common happens, who goes to it, who enforces it, has anybody ever tried to do such a thing? (I’ve read the FBI report, the killings of cops, but that’s different)
What if you can prove to a USian sovereign citizen that he has a black ancestor, does he loose all his rights?
What was Nolan trying to make the judge agree: he said it’s about property, but I’m guessing it must means somethings very precise, given his insistence (and the refusal of the judge) ?
Why have I watched Gattaca only once?
Anyway, you know what the book says:
DON’T PAN(C