Some threads on The Spearhead are virtual gold mines of crackpot misogyny. Today, from the same thread I drew upon for a post the other day, I present to you yet another long-winded antifeminist manifesto from a dude who doesn’t know shit about feminism. This time the dude in question is someone calling himself Darryl X.
Here’s his little screed:
There is only one kind of feminism. There is no first- or second-wave feminism. There is no ecofeminism or radical feminism or socialist feminism. There is no left and right. No conservative or liberal. (With which many feminists would hope to rationalize their egregious misconduct and criminal behavior – “Oh, but I’m not THAT kind of feminist.”) …
Feminism = the Borg
There is only feminism and it is evil and civilization depends upon its complete and utter elimination. Feminism is the product of false constructs and straw men and false flags and lies and fraud and is a political campaign of hate against men and children. Period.
And apparently Darryl loves the word “and.”
It has coopted our financial and legal and political and social institutions to affect the enslavement
[citation needed]
and murder
[citation needed]
and imprisonment and exile
[citation needed]
of men and the forcible separation of children from their fathers. It is responsible for the collapse of our economies worldwide and the fall of civilization.
[citation … oh, forget it. Every single thing he says needs a citation.
Feminists are comprised of mostly women but there are some men (manginas and white knights and other descriptions).
Manginas represent!
Feminists are psychopaths and malignant narcissists, without conscience and driven to do evil. They are solipsistic, manipulative, opportunistic, parasitic and predatory. They are compulsive pathological liars and deceptive and manipulative. They have no empathy, remorse, shame or guilt. They have no analytical skills and cannot plan ahead and are short-sighted. They are shallow of affect and are remorseless and are insincere and disingenuous. They are faithless and in the absence of any analytical skills, they do not have faith in the analytical skills of others, no matter how much evidence there is of its benefits. They are career and life-long con-artists.
Huh. Are you perhaps familiar with the psychological concept of “projection,” a defense mechanism whereby you project some of your own characteristics – particularly your most unsavory ones – onto someone else, or perhaps a group of people?
Just curious.
No matter how we define or relate to one another as men in the MRM, understanding the distinction between men in the MRM and feminists is more important. That is the enemy which must be destroyed. The other men in the MRM from which each of us are different are our brothers and the only important difference is that between men in the MRM and feminists. That’s the difference which defines us and on which civilization depends.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the future of civilization doesn’t actually depend on a bunch of bitter, hateful dickwads grousing on the internet about how much ladies suck.
Aw, thanks!
Darryl joins the list of logical failures.
Thomas Ball was a good man. He loved his children.
A does not follow B.
Certainly more than their mother
Substantiation is lacking. On tbe basis of the evidence I disagree. A single counselling session was all he needed to do to get acces returned. This paragon of paternal love wasn’t willing to do that.
Rather he called for (with instructions) others to commit mayhem and murder. He was asking others to deprive children of their parents. This isn’t, to my mind, indicative of his being a “good man”. I’m not opposed to all killing, but Ball’s justifications are thin, and don’t hold up to examination.
I doubt if any of you have ever fought in a war. Seen your closest acquaintances die in the most gruesome ways.
Wrong again bucko. I have. Care to share your unit of assignment/attachment, and your tour dates? I was with A Co. 525 MI Bn, OIF-1.
He fought in a war so that you didn’t have to. And so that you could enjoy the freedom you do right now to criticize and judge a dead man.
The fuck? He was fighting to return a right that hasn’t been lost (the right to criticise stupid assholes who immolate themselves in a vain, and pointless, attempt to inspire a mass-uprising against a specious oppression)? I thought he was all about ending the reign of terror the family court system of New Hampshire was inflicting on men everywhere.
Not it’s all about freedom of expression. Who knew?
There are many fates which could have been visitied upon Thomas Ball for his mistake. Permanent separation from his children and persecution by an irrational office of child support isn’t any of them.
Glad you admitted this. What separation he did suffer was self-inflicted.
1: He beat his four-year old daughter for acting like a four-year old.
2: He was told to go a trivial level of counselling.
3: He didn’t.
4: His wife filed for divorce.
5: He had a child suppport award he didn’t pay.
6: He never asked for relief.
7: He killed himself and advocated murder, on the part of others, to avenge him.
Some fucking hero you’ve hitched your wagon to.
No one expects you to understand his experience with war. Bullshit, right there (and higher up) you did just that.
Let’s look at his, “experience with war.
Ball claimed service, “going back to the Vietnam War. He was born in Feb. 1958. That means he was 18 in 1971. The US was in drawdown, with Vietnamization in full swing. By 1972 we had no active combat operations going on (there were still advsiors, but these tended to be smaller units, SF Companies, and the like).
So show me some proof of his service in a combat zone, until then, it’s you arrogating an experience of mine, in support of this idiot; because it sounds good.
It’s also bullshit to say that just becuase he might have been in combat his attempt at martydom by suicide is the result of that.
Don’t be such a fuckhead.
Shit… that posted as I was trying to proof it. Sorry for it being messier than usual.
Cliff, why did I think you were a libertarian?
Two axioms that I don’t accept and so feel unable to call myself a libertarian:
1. State X is always worse than private X. (I don’t think state X is always better than private X but nor do I think it’s always worse; it depends on the state, the private entity, and the X.)
2. It is feasible for a significant number of people to live in a way that doesn’t impact anyone else.
If those are true, most libertarian ideas I’ve seen fall very neatly into place, but neither matches up very well with my (limited) observations.
kirby:
Maybe he’s taking the list from words that have been applied to him.
katz:
Probably because it would be accurate.
hellkell:
I’ve heard scented candles aren’t good for fucking. Burn too hot.
Hershele, they’re not good for fucking, but they are excellent for MISANDRY.
Morkai: One of them is six feet long and consists of a ‘shaft’ and a ‘head.’
I feel inadequate. My weapon with a shaft and head isn’t 6 feet long. It’s not even four feet.
It is multi-purpose though, perhaps that makes up for its shortcomings.
“I’m willing to contribute to your care, even if I don’t agree with the circumstances” is a hell of a lot more use to a child than “I’m willing to do horrific, traumatizing things that you never asked me to do, supposedly on your behalf.”
Because I was! But I haven’t identified that way for a while, because of stuff and reasons. (Mostly experiences with just how badly employers can backstab their employees when there aren’t enough restrictions on them.) I still edge libertarian on a lot of issues that don’t involve screwing the poor, but I can’t call myself a libertarian anymore.
Actually, if Ball was born in 1958, he turned 18 in 1976. That was the year I was born, so I’m a little fuzzy on this, but weren’t we well out of Vietnam by then?
@ Seraph
Maybe he fought in the Falkland Islands War 😛
“Actually, if Ball was born in 1958, he turned 18 in 1976. That was the year I was born, so I’m a little fuzzy on this, but weren’t we well out of Vietnam by then?”
That’s the same year my father was born and he still complains he didn’t get to fight in Vietnam (idfk, I can’t explain anything he says or does) — he’d have had to get parental permission to go and that’s a long story. But yeah, 1958 means the only way Ball was in Vietnam was if he got parental permission at 16 to join voluntarily.
My dad was born in 1956 and he missed the war. I can’t imagine someone born in 1958 participating.
@Darryl X
“Thomas Ball was a good man.”
Good people don’t write terrorist manifestos, regardless of the circumstances. And how is his writing terrorist directions to burn government employees alive “making the world safer for our children?”
He beat his 4 year old child. HE BEAT HIS 4 YEAR OLD CHILD. That’s not “a little mistake.” That’s a felony. Had he done the exact same thing to an adult, and had that adult pressed charges, he would have been looking at 3 to 5 years in prison.
What did you expect the court to do? Accept that Thomas Ball, who, had he actually been prosecuted for the assault of his own daughter, would have still been serving his prison sentence, would not beat his child randomly again because he promised he wouldn’t? Despite his refusal of anger management or therapy? Despite the fact that he was so angry that he was already secretly plotting the murder of government employees? Despite the fact that he was so controlling that he wanted to prevent his wife from leaving him?
Do you really want courts to have no regard at all for children’s safety?
Oops, bad arithmetic. So no way Ball was in Vietnam. War, in toto, ended in 1975.
@Cliff: yeah, I used to identify as libertarian too. The more experience I had with Capitalism As It Is Practiced Today, the more I became a proponent of a strong Regulatory State. And every time the Capitalism gets nakeder and uglier in this country, I get more trenchant in my opposition.
It gets much worse and I may take to marching in the streets…….
@Ugh
“Good people don’t write terrorist manifestos, regardless of the circumstances.”
Virtually all of our founding fathers wrote terrorist manifesto’s inspiring the common people to rise up and throw off the oppressive rule of the international bankers. Many acts of terrorism were committed, (Boston tea party is one I’m sure you’ve heard of). As of 1913 the international bankers have reasserted control in the U.S. We live under their rule once again. They write your laws, control your media, run your education, tell you what to eat, what drugs to take, what is and isn’t socially acceptable. They tell you what’s right and wrong.
Depends on what you mean by terrorist. It’s not clear that, per the modern definition of terrorism the Boston Tea Party counted. It was certainly an act of insurrection, but not all insurrection is terroristic, even when violent.
Were there acts of terrorism? Yes. The tories who were tarred and feathered were victims of terrorism. Thomas Paine, with Common Sense, and Patrick Henry with his oratorical flourishes in alehouses weren’t. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence weren’t signing a terrorist document; a revolutionary one, but the two are not synonymous.
Nice try though, and pleasantly free of your usual vitriol; though the “international bankers” is a bit otiose. It was some very specifically national banking they were against (The Colonial System, which said that to make something in the Colonies, for local use, was a crime).
“Spearhead” is a cross-cultural colloquial reference to men at the front of a battle or the troops that are sent in first to fight a battle. They’re usually the ones that suffer the greatest incidence of mortality or casualty. I’m not sure when it was first used but it appears in text going back at least four-thousand years.
WAR. PENIS.
On a more serious note, it’s the people at the front of the battle- vanguard and such. With some effort I can probably find some cultures where there were female ones historically.
I was going to post a comment saying “in before WARPENIS”, but I thought better of it. I now have regrets.
WARPENIS TRANSCENDS REGRET
@ Howard –
“@Cliff: yeah, I used to identify as libertarian too. The more experience I had with Capitalism As It Is Practiced Today, the more I became a proponent of a strong Regulatory State. And every time the Capitalism gets nakeder and uglier in this country, I get more trenchant in my opposition.”
I don;t identify with anything anymore. Since industry influences government so much anymore (lobbyists, anyone? or even closer associations) with our military-industrial complex, “regulation” in my experience amounts to industry regulating itself under the guise of government. A big government is the same as a big industry. It’s all the same. Very incestuous. Capitalism as it is practiced today amounts to fascism. At the same time, socialism amounts to fascism too. Currently there is too much of both. And in our government, there doesn’t appear to be much choice of leadership. Liberals impose too much on the population in one way and conservatives impose too much another way. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
That’s rather nihilistic.
“socialism amounts to fascism too”
Please go learn why what you just said is beyond wrong. You don’t even have to do much work, that’s why humans invented Wikipedia.
(Hint: If you’d have said “authoritarianism” rather than “fascism”, you would have still been wrong, but not uberly so).