Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery drama kings grandiosity manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA narcissism oppressed men the spearhead white knights

Spearheader to feminists: No, YOU’RE the malignant solipsistic predatory narcissists without conscience!

And another thing …

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

339 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

Aw, thanks!

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

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.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Shit… that posted as I was trying to proof it. Sorry for it being messier than usual.

Hershele Ostropoler
9 years ago

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:

Narcissism isn’t even a governmental theory… it’s an aspect of personality. I honestly think he’s drawing off of some “evil-sounding words” generator on the web.

Maybe he’s taking the list from words that have been applied to him.

katz:

At least “humanism” managed to stay off the list.

Probably because it would be accurate.

hellkell:

I bought a scented fucking candle this weekend

I’ve heard scented candles aren’t good for fucking. Burn too hot.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Hershele, they’re not good for fucking, but they are excellent for MISANDRY.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

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.

Cliff Pervocracy
9 years ago

Thomas Ball was a good man. He loved his children. Certainly more than their mother

“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.”

Cliff Pervocracy
9 years ago

Cliff, why did I think you were a libertarian?

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.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

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?

ragefromthebasement
9 years ago

@ Seraph

Maybe he fought in the Falkland Islands War 😛

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

“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.

ragefromthebasement
9 years ago

My dad was born in 1956 and he missed the war. I can’t imagine someone born in 1958 participating.

Ugh
Ugh
9 years ago

@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?

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Oops, bad arithmetic. So no way Ball was in Vietnam. War, in toto, ended in 1975.

Howard Bannister
9 years ago

@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…….

nwoslave
9 years ago

@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.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

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).

Darryl X
Darryl X
9 years ago

“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.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
9 years ago

WAR. PENIS.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
9 years ago

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.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
9 years ago

I was going to post a comment saying “in before WARPENIS”, but I thought better of it. I now have regrets.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
9 years ago

WARPENIS TRANSCENDS REGRET

Darryl X
Darryl X
9 years ago

@ 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.

MorkaisChosen
MorkaisChosen
9 years ago

That’s rather nihilistic.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
9 years ago

“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).

Darryl X
Darryl X
9 years ago

@ Morkais –

I didn’t say I like it LOL. Nothing “rather” about it. It IS nihilistic. But I think it is an accurate portrayal.

Howard Bannister
9 years ago

@Darryl X:

You aren’t wrong. But… you’re wrong.

Government socialism as a puppet tool of the corporations is A) not really socialism and B) everything you describe.

Yeah.

“Government of the people, by the people, FOR the people.”

They own it, yes they do. Obama is a corporatist.

And when the people stand up together, they are more than any corporation, more than any government. When they stand together they are more than can be resisted.

You can listen to those who want you to despair, those who want you to lie down and stop resisting so they can easily use you as a serf.

Or you can fight.

I have been the tool of the oppressor, and I have been the person who lay there and didn’t resist.

And I’ll be damned if I’ll do either again.

Darryl X
Darryl X
9 years ago

@ Shade –

I think it depends upon degree. Once any kind of government becomes too big, it devolves into fascism or one of those other “isms”. Since the US has a large military-industrial complex, any attempts at socialism or capitalism or any combination thereof (or some other type of government for that matter) pretty much becomes an expression of fascism.

Darryl X
Darryl X
9 years ago

@ Howard –

“I have been the tool of the oppressor, and I have been the person who lay there and didn’t resist.
And I’ll be damned if I’ll do either again.”

I heard that. Don’t need to tell me twice.

katz
9 years ago

And the solution? Ron Paul.

ozymandias42
9 years ago

I don’t really have enough of a coherent political philosophy to call myself much of anything beyond “whatever works and makes people happy,” but my political opinions are more-or-less in line with the current platform of the Socialist Party of the USA, so I call myself a socialist.

Howard Bannister
9 years ago

My personal attitude towards labels:

“Nae President! Nae Congressman! Nae Caucus! Nae Party! We willnae get fooled again!”

Apologies to Pterry.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

I think it depends upon degree. Once any kind of government becomes too big, it devolves into fascism or one of those other “isms”. Since the US has a large military-industrial complex, any attempts at socialism or capitalism or any combination thereof (or some other type of government for that matter) pretty much becomes an expression of fascism.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Start with wiki and pay attention to —

Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and the two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy.

One common definition of fascism focuses on three groups of ideas:

* The Fascist Negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism.
* Nationalist, authoritarian goals for the creation of a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture.
* A political aesthetic using romantic symbolism, mass mobilisation, a positive view of violence, promotion of masculinity and youth and charismatic leadership.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Darryl: I’m not sure when it was first used but it appears in text going back at least four-thousand years.

Citation needed.

I don;t identify with anything anymore.

Yes you do. The MRM.

Capitalism as it is practiced today amounts to fascism. At the same time, socialism amounts to fascism too.

No. Not to either.

But that nihilism is a convenient looking cover for what appears (apart from the hating on women being equal part) a whole lot of apathy.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

And Darryl… what war did Thomas Ball fight in to protect my liberties? Why do you praise him for taking part in the oppressive military industrial machine you are now decrying?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Darryl: I’m not sure when it was first used but it appears in text going back at least four-thousand years.

Citation needed.

The word “spearhead” seems damned recent — 1893 recent. Latin does have a similar concept though — “hastatus -a -um [armed with a spear]; m. pl. as subst. , hastati -orum, [the front rank of the Roman army when drawn up for battle].” — Not knowing any ancient(er) languages, I can’t help any with >3,000 years.

And let me end this Latin lesson with a joke — ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum! (you can pop that into google translate, I checked).

(Yeah I realize you weren’t asking me, but did you really think I’d resist a Latin question? 🙂 )

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Oh and the only 4,000 year old written languages (that’s been deciphered), afaik, are Sumerian and Egyptian. Ancient Greek (Crete) is about 3,500~ years old (and not really Greek at that point, but another hieroglyphic based language).

So Latin having a similar concept really doesn’t help his “at least 4,000 years” claim.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Argenti: Oh and the only 4,000 year old written languages (that’s been deciphered), afaik, are Sumerian and Egyptian. Ancient Greek (Crete) is about 3,500~ years old (and not really Greek at that point

I knew that when I asked.

I also knew that the primary arm (the “units of decision”) in both those armies weren’t armed with spears, ergo such a locution isn’t likely to have existed.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Pecunium — yeah I figured you probably did, that was more for everyone else. Also, see “Yeah I realize you weren’t asking me, but did you really think I’d resist a Latin question?”

I’m guessing you also know the hastati didn’t exist for very long, making it one hell of a stretch to say “spearhead” has been around even since then (and even if it were, that’d still be only half of his 4,000 year claim).

And partly, I’m just amused by the idea of a particular word being that old — a concept sure, but the word itself? All the examples of “didn’t change that much” words that I can think of are religious in some form or fashion — Isis is that old for example, but I have to count her as a concept and not her name as a word considering the writing system in question (she’s at least 5,000 years old actually, she seems to predate writing…unlike “spearhead”…)

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Question – why do so many MRAs show up here (and on other feminist-leaning blogs) and claim not to actively support the MRM, and then immediately follow up with points that make it clear that they support the MRM? I can’t figure out if they think this is a brilliant tactic that will advance their agenda because it’s MRAs as people that feminists tend to dislike rather than the MRM the movement and its core values, or if they’re just too apathetic and cowardly to actively advocate anything to the extent of admitting that yes, they are part of a movement. Or if they’re just too in love with the idea of themselves as special snowflakes to admit that their belief system actually can be pretty neatly summarised and is not all that unique.

ragefromthebasement
9 years ago

@Cassandra

Because MRAs are starting to get a bad name. It’s like when people say “I’m not racist but…” They still want to espouse their misogynistic beliefs without being associated with a hate movement. They think they’re keeping their hands clean. Plausible denialability.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Argenti: The Hastati were the primary arm of the Roman Legions in the days before the Marian Reforms. The more interesting idea was that, as a unit of decision they weren’t well thought of, being the least experienced members of the Republican Legions. The triarii (older soldiers, in the rear ranks) were the one’s referred to in aphorism: “to go to the triarii” was a phrase equivalent to “going to the bitter end” (which is a phrase we get from the Royal Navy ca. 1800, and relates part of a rope).

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Pecunium — you forgot “and the most likely to die”, though I guess that would aid his highly jumbled point about the word “spearhead”. Did not realize that “going to the bitter end” involved nautical terms though, kind of figured “bitter end” was just the logical “oh great, we’re all going to die”.

Wtf is “to go to the triarii” in Latin, that’s got to be an idiom, but gero or eo? (eo declines hilariously weirdly, makes sum look normal)

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Argenti: At sea one often needed long “ropes” (most of what a landsman would call “rope” wasn’t actually rope, it was cable, or halyard. On tall ships there’s actually a joke about there being “only one rope on board” because the only lines which are rope, in the technical sense are those which are used to hoist flags and signals, and there is only one of those in the running rigging, but I digress).

Those ropes were attached to “bitts”,and so the terminus was, “the bitter end”.

As to the Latin, I don’t know. I’ve seen it referenced, but never quoted directly. Given the ways in which, “to go” is used in english, I can imagine a few verbs to use.

Wait
Endure until
Send for
Use

And for all I know, the references could have been extrapolative. We don’t have the best dictionaries of Latin Slang and Aphorism.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

“We don’t have the best dictionaries of Latin Slang and Aphorism.” — no, but we do have Cicero, who sure loved to use slang (and some very creative insults). Gero is to carry, but it’s the verb used in “to wage war”, and “to carry (on) war” sort of makes sense. I doubt it would be wait, though it could be (the more common verbs for “to wait” are the roots of expectation and minister, not really the “we’re all going to die” sense). Send for would carry a sense of bringing them into battle, not having to fall back on them, ditto for to use, well, for habeo (to have or use) anyways…could be usurpo. To endure would be one of the many fero verbs, that could be it…Can you tell this is going to bug me now? I do hope I can answer this one without having to read Cicero, goodness do I hate his overly formal style.

Wtf is the difference between cable and rope? I’d thought a halyard was a type of rope.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

No Cicero required!

“Ad triarios redisse (LA): ‘to fall back on the triarii (LA)’; to have reached a desperate situation.”

Of course it’s a participle of an irregular verb…that’s redigo, I think (I hate irregular verbs, so I may well be wrong here).

redigo -igere -egi -actum [to drive back , bring back]; of money, etc. [to draw in, call in]; in gen. [to bring or reduce to a condition; to reduce in number, value, etc.; to lessen, bring down].

…now, between the roommate and I we once owned 3 copies of Wheelocks…are any of them in the apt?

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

I have better than Wheelock’s, though copyright 63 🙂 (this is a better reference than the modern one, less filler)

It’s the perfect active infinitive of redeo -ire -ii (-ivi) -itum (1) [to go back , come back, return]; ‘ad se’, [to come to one’s senses]; redit, [the matter comes up again]. (2) of revenue, income, etc. [to come in]. (3) [to fall back upon, be reduced or brought to].

(What’s really hilarious? I barely passed Latin, I can’t be pedantic enough without a reference book)

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Argh, ignore the “better than”, that was me being a dolt about it not being the Wheelock’s I spent so many hours cursing at.

VoIP
VoIP
9 years ago

“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.

Argenti and Pecunium have done yeoman’s service in stomping the last claim you made into the ground, but I’d like to address the penultimate one. The greatest number of wartime deaths up to and including the First World War did not occur due to combat itself but to disease or famine. (Remember the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? It’s a list of everything that happens to you during a war: War, Famine, Pestilence, Death.) These hardships are borne equally by women and men, and fall heaviest upon children and the very old.

Moreover, in some parts of the period I study, actual battle was somewhat of a last resort–not only would many commanders forego giving battle as long as they could, since their armies represented a huge investment of time and capital, but one recognized strategy was to invade an enemy’s territory simply to despoil the region; since an army represented such a great burden upon the area forced to provide food for it, it’s easy to cause a lot of trouble for an enemy without fighting at all.

Finally, until relatively recently women and children travelled along with men in armies, and they were exposed to many of the same dangers such as starving to death, getting sick, or getting shot at.

It is simply not the case that the heaviest burdens of early modern warfare were borne by Manly Men.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
9 years ago

Awesome information! I always love a good conversation on sayings/expressions and where they come from, it’s really interesting stuff.