Men’s Rights subreddit regular Demonspawn (remember him?) is back again with some deliberately vague but definitely threatening talk about judges and politicians:
Not a lot of “plausible deniability” here, though I am sure various MRAs will try to excuse this as not being what it obviously is: a threat of violence against judges, politicians and others who work for the government.
He’s done this before; I wrote about it here.
And while we’re on the topic of Demonspawn, here’s a little followup comment of his from the thread we discussed the other day. It’s a giant wall of text, I know, but it contains gems like: “When women mouth off to men and get their faces bashed in, they’ll know equality.” At least this comment of his got as many downvotes as upvotes.
I’m banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit, of course, but Demonspawn, despite repeatedly violating the subreddit’s rules about posting comments advocating violence, continues to post away. See his comment history for more lovely thoughts on, among other things, why women are parasites who don’t deserve the vote.
Buuuuut it’s HAAAAAAAARRRRDDDD to prove stuff!!!!
@BlackBloc – I NEVER said “feminism was a C1A plot” – I provided evidence for C1A funding of Gloria Steinem and involvement in Ms Magazine.
You and every one else is adding 2 + 2 and getting 10,000.
@Sharculese – “lol”? Fucking “lol”!!!?? What’s to “lol” about the thousands of people slaughtered in bush wars across sub-Saharan Africa! What, are you some kind of racist Sharculese??
My POINT to anonymousworld is that the story of this shit has not been fully told in the mass media, and I doubt it made it into his mainstream, “respected author” books yet. Maybe in 30 years or so when the dirty politicos reckon they’ll be safe from backlash.
I gave you examples just as relevant, with just as much evidence.
You said: Steinem was ex-CIA, so feminism is part of a CIA plot.
I said: Julia Child is ex-CIA, so all French cooking is part of a CIA plot.
You said: Some feminist academics were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, so feminism is a banker scam.
I said: Some orphanges were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, so orphanages are a banker scam.
So far, I think our conspiracy theories are about equal in evidence.
But feminists run society through SovietBankAgencyCo, right? So why is it that every single feminist is on your side on this issue, and yet society still isn’t listening?
Has it occurred to you that the reason for this is that feminists, do not, in fact, control the world through SovietBankAgencyCo?
The actual movement was to treat non-violent women offenders with histories of abuse and mental illness in women’s shelters and community programs. They focused on women because women are much more likely to fall into that category. No part of the bill affected men in any way.
So, as an anti-government loon, why are you glad that the government’s penal power was upheld? Wouldn’t it make more sense to pass the bill and then introduce similar ones for male non-violent offenders? Why is it always about tearing down women rather than building up men?
I couldn’t agree more. However, feminists have done more for men as a by-product of their own activism than the entire MRM, by a freaking mile. As it turns out, hate groups are not actually the advocacy that men need.
@blitzgal – sorry, where did I say “false flag”? (2+2 = a million again)
Why did that immediately leap to mind?
Did you watch the testimony on the videos – they are from mainstream outlets, so don’t be scared now.
Why does it make you so uncomfortable when the narrative that you are spoonfed is questioned?
Are you aware that experimental psychologists have found that humans show a preference for the first answer / explanation they hear of any given phenomenon?
Why do you blindly support the status quo as promoted by the mass media?
actually, i shouldnt say it’s ‘basic law enforcement stuff’ since law enforcement is only slowly coming on board with the problems of eye-witness id
Also, every time a freshwater fish is simmered delicately in white wine sauce, or given to an orphanage. the banksters win.
Save the money on the fish and buy a shiny metal distributed, sold, and price-fixed by the world’s largest financial firms. That’ll show ’em.
the part where you incoherently blustered because someone was reading things that dont confirm what you wanted to think, and act like you have the moral highground about it?
Psychologists have also shown that people are much more likely to believe a load of shit when it is preceded by “The authorities are lying to you, but here’s the truth.”
Why do you think Chase has sold so much gold at such an obscene price over the last five years?
wait, so… the mainstream media is presenting what you want them to, and you’re still whining that they’re not presenting what you want them too? what exactly is your issue?
@Sharculese – I haven’t made any extraordinary claims. This is all basic, obvious shit – it’s so systemic you don’t even notice it. Furthermore, I know that if I gave you 20 sources, or 200 for any claim I made, you’d just wave your hands and say “oooh, too many words! Wall of text! tl;dr!” ….
You CANNOT learn eanything new, you’ll never do any research of your own along the lines I have indicated, because you already believe you have all the answers. Your mind is CLOSED. And that really is YOUR problem.
As for me, this site will come up on alll kinds of google searches for men’s rights, and there’s a whole silent audience out there that will read the links I provide, and will see your wilful ignorance.
Further:
So you’re saying that people who weren’t there (at the shooting) magically have a better idea than the people who were there? What, do you believe in remote viewing or some BS like that?
You sincerely believe that multiple witnesses would confuse ONE man with FOUR!???
Now that IS an extraordinary claim!
Oh god he’s killing me
Hon, I work with a tinfoil hattie. I’ve heard all the half-baked theories a hundred times before.
@The First Joe: Look, no matter how fucking brilliant you think you are compared to us plebes, your Ron Paul gold bug conspiracy theorist Third Positionism is pretty transparent. I’ve dealt with your kind many times. I ought to make a post about it called Shrodinger’s Fascist. “I’m just asking questions”, “I’m just a race realist”, “Don’t you see that Western civilization is crumbling because women are not pumping out babies”. Woop dee doo.
>>>You sincerely believe that multiple witnesses would confuse ONE man with FOUR!???
Multiple witnesses claim they’ve seen a UFO over the London Olympics opening ceremonies. People who weren’t there knew that it was the fucking Goodyear blimp. So fucking what?
@howard – Mary Winkler did only a few months in jail for killing her sleeping husband with a shotgun (including time waiting for trial) her defence was she hadn’t meant to shoot, and he had criticised her and asked her to wear high heels this was claimed as “abuse”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Winkler
If you can find me any case in the West where a man killed his wife and was released in months because he claimed he didn’t mean to do it, and oooh, she was “mean” to him? I will be astonished.
And I’m in moderation, probably for mentionning some unnameable politician our friend Joe is probably a friend of.
@Blitzgal – I am not presenting you a “theory” I am presenting witness testimony that contradicts the narrative served by the mainstream media. This is not a “theory” this is EVIDENCE – try to learn the difference.
@Ugh – You’re being deliberately obtuse. And you’re LYING about what I said. AGAIN.
@Blackbloc – Wait, you’re comparing people saying they saw a UFO – which we have no hard evidence for with…. testimony from witnesses to a shooting, where there is shitloads of hard evidence (bodies, bullets, cases etc. etc.). These two things are not the same, numbnuts.
BlackBlock, I’ve had posts moderated for saying the word “w*ore.” I think I can thank Tom Whatshisface for that one, lol.
Joe, are you a Ron Paul supporter? I’m just curious.
if it was all so basic and obvious, you wouldnt need to do all this work to point it out.
you know it’s not obvious, you know the connections are tenuous, but you won’t admit that because stomping your feet and screaming ‘YOU ONLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE’ is easier and reinforces the narrative that youre the super-special holder of a truth that the rest of us can’t handle.
by which i mean you’ll crow and beat your chest and say stuff like this:
congratulations, dude. you’ve convinced yourself youre so much smarter than the sheeple. maybe you can make yourself a little certificate of achievement.
@Joe
You still haven’t said why your theory is more valid than my French Cooking orphanage theory.
By “obtuse” do you you mean “not taking on faith that my shoddily supported conspiracy theory are more valid any other shoddily supported conspiracy theories?”
In which case, yes, it is deliberate.
@Joe
HAHA YES NO MAN EVER HAS RECEIVED THE CHARGE OF VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER OR LESS FOR KILLING HIS WIFE
Seriously, you got my hopes up so much when you admitted you know that Google exists.
Gee, you’re right, how silly of me. For the UFO story, officials only can make an educated guess at what the people who witnessed the UFO were staring at, and each witness might have actually been seeing a different object that they couldn’t explain. Whereas the police in the shooting actually have ballistic evidence that they can use to say “No, actually there was only one shooter, and we can prove it” even though they weren’t there, and the eye witnesses didn’t have access to that hard evidence that would have proven to them that they were wrong to think there were four shooters.
“Think for yourself, and start by believing what I tell you to believe”
“Which is only okay when I do it.”
Conspiracy theorists, almost to a man, ayup XD
Do you understand the premise of actual police work and forensics? XD
Have you read *any* of the research on the unreliability of eye witnesses? XD
I’m guessing that’s going to be worked into the Conspiracy now.
you didnt say you had other evidence regarding the number of shooters, tho. you just pointed to eyewitness reports (which again) are unreliable. do you have forensic reports proving there were four shooters, are you lazily conflating the two, or do you honestly not understand that different types of evidence are different?