self-immolation-

The Bad Man Complex

If you’re a Men’s Human Rights Activist, then it’s likely you know the name of Thomas James Ball. If you’re not an MHRA, then that name will likely mean nothing to you.

Ball was a New Hampshire father savaged for 15 years by the family court. This lasted as long as it did because he would not give up on his pursuit of a meaningful relationship with his children. During that time, he came to an understanding of the nature of the family court system in New Hampshire, and elsewhere.

It is a system of wealth appropriation, populated and run by bullies and tyrants and sadists. These courts use the weight and power of the law, but engage in a blanket pattern of disregarding said law as a matter of selective fiat. It is utterly and totally corrupt. Phrases like “the best interests of the children” excuse the court’s continued existence, and shame and silence those who would expose the court to the public.

The claimed mission of the court is to serve children’s best interests, so anyone criticizing the court can is portrayed as uncaring of children’s best interests, or cruelly opposed to them.

Thomas James Ball, brutalized for years by a system that ignores its own rules, came to his own realization. Following the rules of a rotten system was, and always would be self defeating. He knew he had to find an alternative path. In profound, and prolonged desperation and pain, Ball wrote a plan which included, among other things, the burning to the ground of court-houses. He published this plan, but did not follow it himself. Even Ball, convinced of the need to destroy a powerful and corrupt legal institution, could not bring himself to commit such grave acts of destruction and murder.

What Mr Ball did do was at least as serious. He went to the front steps of his own local family courthouse in New Hampshire. He soaked himself in gasoline. Then, he lit himself on fire, and while burning, walked back and forth, in front of the courthouse, fending off the bystanders attempting to put out the flames. After about a minute, Mr Ball, still burning, collapsed onto to his hands and knees, and then died. Like most men destroyed by the Family Court, he directed his violent protest inward onto himself, and not at the people and institutions who had injured him.

It was Thomas Ball’s intention that his protest, encompassing his own gruesome death would draw public attention to a venal and toxic system.

However, After his death, where news of an American self-immolating was not erased from public view, the media demonized Mr. Ball as a violent, psychotic maniac. Three years after his death, that American man who burned himself to death in front of an American courthouse is unknown outside the men’s human rights movement.

When a man has died, the mainstream controls whatever narrative will heard about who he was while alive.

There are a million more Thomas Balls out there.

Some of them have also burned themselves to death, like Mr Ball, in an effort to draw attention to their struggles. More will shoot themselves. They will be flatly ignored by a media maintaining a public narrative that cannot afford to address their existence or their actions. Some, like domestic violence activist Earl Silverman, will hang themselves. They too will be erased or ignored by the mainstream, or worse, vilified as psychotic and dangerous because men hanging themselves in political protest, or even in desperation, agony, and grief doesn’t fit into the purposefully maintained public lie in which men are the oppressor class.

Men pulled into the meat grinder of the family court system are all too often violently, brutally and sadistically abused by that system. They are men who are extorted of their incomes, denied relationships with their children, falsely accused of crimes, denied a voice in their own defence, convicted without evidence and sometimes, without notice by judicial fiat in star chambers, and brutalized, shaken down, publicly smeared, and coerced, threatened and harassed by the proxy violence of a semi-legitimate legal apparatus.

When a man victimizes a woman, the legal system does what it can to protect her and punish him. When a woman victimizes a man, the legal system is frequently the instrument she uses to do it. And a very efficient instrument it is.

These are men who have tried, repeatedly to escape the abuse and extortion of the “legitimate” system using the acceptable tools of legal petition and rational argument. They have tried and failed to escape this systematized abuse and extortion.

What emerges from this is often a belief that the utter indifference of the public to injustice, abuse, and ongoing trauma heaped onto men can be broken by shocking the public out of their apathy. This shock to be accomplished by responding to the use of force by the courts with initiated force in return. This was the impetus behind Thomas Ball’s published plan to burn New Hampshire courthouses down. If the legitimate avenues of justice are closed, if rationality or reasoned argument, or even basic compassion, are closed, broken and silenced with violent force by those who control a legal monopoly on violence then the illegitimate, illegal and fatal path of violent redress of grievance appears the only remaining option.

Indeed, we are all living in a system in which the so-called legitimate courts and the so-called legitimate government approaches all problems by the forcible and violent appropriation of funds from private citizens, and by the direct violence of uniformed agents of the state and the courts. Violence and coercion are obviously the preferred, if not the only, tools of those our social system holds in highest official esteem – judges and elected officials.

There will, of course be objections to this assertion, along with avowals that being locked in a prison cell is not an act of violence. There will also be complaints that the non-optional appropriation of private income referred to as “taxation” or “family maintenance” is not forcible theft either.

Such complaints are asinine and fraudulent.

It will also be claimed that the violence done with official sanction by uniformed employees of the courts or the state is not actually violence – because of the costumes worn by such enforcers, or perhaps because of the widespread acceptance of the authority of those enforcers by the general public. This too is moronic.

Violence is not made legitimate by the simple donning of a badge and uniform and the collection of a pay check. Coercion and theft are not rendered legitimate by the fact that the benefactors of said wrongs have the political power to write, enforce or ignore laws, or to convince others to do so in their stead.

However, in a culture of officially acceptable violence – at least, acceptable when it’s practiced by the right costume-wearing court employees, and after exhausting the allowable options for non-violent redress of grievance, it is entirely understandable that men brutalized, extorted and abused by the courts begin to consider their own capacity for initiated force as a viable path.

Alternately, they consider their death as a viable price to pay. Men brutalized to the silence of an indifferent public often believe that their own hanging death or a gunshot death, or burning themselves to the ground will jolt the wider public out of indifference to human harm inflicted on men. Sometimes that death is conceived through the technique of death by cop.

And of course, none of these tools are legitimate instruments of social change, neither by our philosophical opponents nor by MHRAs. Not only is it illegitimate, it will not work.

“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humour.”

~John Lennon.

Setting aside the practical reality that compared to an individual, or even a group of individuals, the state and the courts have almost infinite capacity to absorb and to dispense violence;
To understand why neither violence towards the state, nor towards the self in protest will work, it’s necessary to recognize what the state actually is.

The state, or if we prefer to think in terms of “the government” is a group of people to whom the normally operant moral rules prohibiting violence do not apply. Force initiated by an individual is both a criminal and a moral violation. By contrast, force initiated by employees of the state or the court is not only legal, it is seen as morally praiseworthy. That this double standard exists is not a matter of debate, however, believers in the acceptance of culturally sanctioned violence, theft and coercion will field a nearly endless suite of illogical and factually false rationalizations for the public acceptability of the proxy violence practiced by functionaries of the state and courts.

Once we recognize that this thing we call “the state” as manifested through courts, police, financial organizations is no more than an approved suspension of social prohibition on criminal and predatory behaviour for a few – it’s easier to understand that neither force used against it, nor any form of suicide in protest will have the slightest positive impact.

And Once you are dead, you are no longer able to speak or act. The public narrative about who and what you were will be entirely in the control of those you were protesting against.

And if the stories of Earl Silverman or of Thomas Ball are to teach us anything as MHRAs, it is that the only message your self-destroyed corpse will carry is the one chosen, crafted, and perpetuated by those in control of the cultural narrative. Thomas Ball, whose act of political martyrdom did little more outward harm than to make a few judges late for lunch, was branded a terrorist. Yes, a terrorist. This man whose contempt for the system that demolished him was so great he made plans to wage a genuine war on it, but who, in the end, turned his rage solely on himself, was portrayed by the media and by his opponents as a dangerous madman.

When even a man’s decision to self-harm or self-destruct can be twisted into a threat and a victimization of those who injured him in the first place, we are living in place of hard lessons and no justice.

The idea that by dying at the end of a rope, in a fire, or after being shot by police a man will jostle the public out of their passive acceptance of men’s trauma is a false notion.

The reality is that each of these potentially violent and fatal outcomes will be gleefully re-purposed to bolster and to amplify the already existing narrative that men are violent, predatory, and that further pre-emptive anti male policies are justified and needed.

In fact, the feminists who drive the ongoing changes to law, and domestic policy, eroding due process and demonizing masculine identity want you, in desperation, to either kill yourself or to lash outwards, returning some fraction of the violence routinely poured out onto men through the family courts and other domestic policies.

They want a world filled with men who have been abused to the point that they respond with the use of force. That fits perfectly into the maintained narrative in which you are to be silenced, caged or killed rather than addressed as a human with a grievance. In addition, if you become the violent man they want you to be, they will kill you, and re-tell your story to serve the ever growing feminist narrative.

There is another, more effective path.

That path begins with a recognition, by men, of their own value as human beings whose lives matter to themselves. Fatal self sacrifice – considered as an option in service of a “greater good” has got to go. That idea is the basis for a system which has always, and which continues to run on the willingly disposable corpses of so called good men.

Men do not just create value in our economy and our culture – men because of their nature as doers, builders and innovators and actors form the foundation of almost all economic value. Men are inherently valuable. At present, however, most do not realize this, and adopt a provided model of personal identity which facilitates the exploitation of their value by others, often including their own willing self sacrifice, in service of that value appropriation.

The alternative path is simple, but not necessarily easy. It begins, for men, with a profound refocusing of what their personal identity is based on.

For almost all men, the consensus public opinion that you are a good man is, right now – the basis for your identity. That consensus is one in which you are a utility to be exploited. The idea – applied to you, even in your own mind of “Good Man” or “Real Man” is actually a carrot, hanging on a pole attached to the cart you are towing. You are a draft animal.

But what if you unhitch yourself from the harness? What if you reject your own role as a utility, a resource, a provider and what your exploiters use to qualify you as a good man?

What if you flatly reject any merit in your ability to dispense or to absorb violence on the behalf of the so called gentler sex?

No longer a disposable guard and enforcer. No longer a human cash machine. No longer a reliable automaton who feels no injury – but who everybody else relies on to suck it up, get the job done and never complain – while keeping the lights and heat on for the rest of the culture.

You’re going to have to burn your “good man” card. You’re going to have to realize what good man really means is good utility, or good disposable human.

The state, and all its apparatus of theft and coercion depends for its continued viability on two things: One is the continued buy-in of men to the idea of the good man. You, continuing to be a good man is what keeps the money flowing. Your money, used to pay the people with their hands in your pocket, and their company cars parked carelessly in your broccoli patch. The second element is the continued credulity of the public (that’s you) toward the idea that thieves, thugs, robbers and violent sociopaths are not in fact thieves, thugs, robbers and so on. So long as they take home a paycheque funded by the form of theft we commonly call taxation.

The second element of a profound change is disdain, and loss of credulity.

A cultivated disdain and contempt for corrupt and illegitimate social institutions, expressed through both calm evaluation, and satire, and without the personal violence those institutions have always used to justify themselves and justify increasing their own reach.

Your corpse wont wake anybody up, and when you’re dead, you wont even control the story they use to justify having killed you.

It does take big balls to die a martyr. It takes bigger balls to defy the widely shared narrative of your worth as a function of disposable utility, and to not die. Balls big enough to live by your own definition. The big brass bowling balls to declare yourself a human, and defy the narrative that you are not. Are yours big enough to be that bad man?

22 thoughts on “The Bad Man Complex”

  1. This is a great piece that ought to be read and understood by everyone that hasn’t been ground down by now. The flaw in taking yourself off the list of characters in the narrative comes if you’ve already lost out on that option to have a good relationship with the offspring you wanted to fight for. That pain is what eats at you like bowl full of ground glass you’ve eaten at breakfast, then lunch, then dinner. Not really worth much going for then. Thanks for your efforts.

  2. We need the support of the general public as a source of political pressure and funding. It is a mortal mistake to present a public face devoid of well worn masculine traits. These traits will also serve us well in attaining victory. I am interested in complete and utter victory and I will not fight if my peers are not interested in the same. Our adversary has alienated itself from the population at large and is entirely unaware of the state of public support. While they have their hands on the levers and their willing and unwilling accomplices are all present and accounted for they feel it is business as usual. This is all good news for our cause. As far as violence goes, it is not warranted. Our foe is crafty but little more than that. We do not want to leave a smoking hole of a country to our children, and that is the point of our contention. It is not us. This is not for us. This is for our sons and daughters. We brought a fair-minded nation into existence with the kind of freedom that provided an extraordinary life prior to the dark night of feminism. This is one of the richest nations on earth, make no mistake, larger forces are after this prize. A man’s duty is to his children as is a woman’s to her children. The father must sacrifice himself as must the mother if the father or another man is not there to do so. This has always been the contract. My grandmother knew this. If your mind has been poisoned against women by the actions of feminists and feminist subverted institutions I would ask you to think of the women that fought animals with their bare hands and gave their lives for their children. We must never show disrespect towards women. It is feminists that are our Orwellian nightmare. The drum must consistently beat “feminism is not women” in our own minds as it is presently in the public’s mind. Our opportunity is the dire state of affairs for boys in education. We can build a massive mailing list soliciting email addresses for this cause and we can save a generation of boys long before the final feminist is sent to jail for embezzling government funds. We must penetrate the larger public sphere by means of direct email. If we must have radical elements then they must never be associated with our cause regarding boys in education. We left an entire generation unprotected, even the Spartans allowed their boys to be cared for properly until the age of seven. We surrendered the field and left them unprotected and this will forever be our shame but that is neither here nor there. For those that thirst vengeance, it is always best served cold. The best vengeance is to live well. Get in shape, process your grief as best as you can and join your brothers and sisters on the field. If after vanquishing our enemy you still thirst vengeance we will allow proper application of our laws to apportion long prison sentences to feminists that have broken the law with impunity and more importantly to the judges, law enforcement officials and even teachers that have aided, abetted and foisted this malignancy upon our once beautiful society and communities. There will be jobs and pensions lost to be certain. The return to justice and freedom takes precedence over any petty self indulgences. Life in a democracy sometimes requires perseverance, suffering and most of all courage. Do not be baited. If reacting do so as a choice and only to undermine the our foe. If we react ineffectively it could serve to shore up support for the malignancy of feminism. Feminism is misandry among other things (the spell check does not recognize misandry).
    Feminists formed many groups over the last 40 years composed of largely the same members and presented themselves as separate entities to government and obtained grants and other funds. Portions of these funds were then in turn misappropriated for political action. This against the law but judges will likely do little in court but the court of public opinion is where the real victory is to be had. In turn associating politicians with feminist criminals will yield real gains. We must first identify all charitable organizations as well as groups provided government funds. The efficacy of feminist domestic violence shelters and policing policies can also be called into question with 40 years of no impact or worsening of the scourge of domestic violence. The key point here is that victims were re-victimized by an ideology with political goals and aspirations holding preeminence over and thus corrupting assistance to people in need. Just imagine what could have been done to better the plight of children and even women if the known truth about domestic violence informed treatment at centers for men, women, boys and girls. There are many other avenues to be exploited simultaneously. Feminism has 40 years of devastation in its wake. There are women as well as men that have horrendous stories that can contribute to its demise. I sat in a lecture a few years ago on a University campus that was had almost all women students in it. An old warhorse of a feminist lecturer was scorching us with the same wrote feminist rhetoric and there were audible groans from a majority of the women in attendance. While these young women were age appropriately completely self absorbed and both suspicious and desirous of men they knew the story they were hearing was largely fantasy and that feminists were not a credit to their University. If the time is not now it is close. I stand for and offer my protection to women. Women have nothing to fear. They can shed the parasite that is feminism with no concern whatsoever. If the last 40 years have shown women anything, men will do all they can to fulfill their wishes and address their concerns.

    1. Feminism is the politicization of the underlying societal bias of gynocentrism. You are an anti feminist, but from your commentary, you are clearly deeply gynocentric. More woman-favoritism, and willing self sacrificial men like you is NOT what we need, and that you seem not to grasp this doesn’t speak well for you being anything except just another willing disposable man, fetching and carrying against your own best interests, and in aid of a culture of disregard for men and boys.

  3. Awesome read guys.

    I can’t wait for gynocentrism to become history. And put in the “where civilizations fall” section.

    I’m doing my part, refusing to work to death on 50hr weeks, refusing cohab, relationships and marriage with women and above all doing what i want. This potential slave avoided, and is still avoiding, capture.

  4. Karen & John,

    A very insightful article. The assessment of feminism with proxy violence and enforcement through the law is spot on. From experience I can say that the family court system can and will use excessive force when a man stands up for his rights as a man and a father. The vast majority of judges and court personnel have been trained and indoctrinated by feminists. The debunked and completely misandric Duluth model of IPV is still the standard, a standard feminism will defend to the ends of the earth because it demonizes men and relegates women to perpetual victimhood. It’s their gold standard.

    When men finally learn to live for themselves and demand equal treatment under the law and in society, only then will positive change will happen. A lot of people, both women and men would rather see the world burn instead of regarding boys and men as human beings.

  5. Well written and enlightening. Imagine if even a fraction of the portion of men and boys who commit suicide every year in protest of the system where to instead become involved in the MHRA movement instead. Our message has to be this, that we must stay in the fight even if its for our grand-kids benefits. This is the only fight worth fighting, with non-violence and humor, which the system cannot exploit without exposing itself.

  6. I have been in the battle now for so long. I will not belabor you with tales of the hundreds of thousands spent fruitlessly. I will not bemoan false arrests and imprisonments or harrassments of my family. I will not talk about my utter contempt for the RCMP and for all “government officials”……I will not tell you what medieval actions should be taken against all people participating in any and all aspects of the “family court”

    What I want is WAR…..

    and you say no……so then give us your prescription for being a “bad man”……because I am more than willing.
    Do I try and spit in the face of Alberta officials?…because I have called them Nazis to their face…they look away because they all know…

    My sons need me.

    Please have Karen contact me…we have met but things have gotten much worse since then…….

  7. This post reminded me of a famous post (in my opinion) from Welmer, six years ago:

    http://www.welmer.org/2008/04/30/mens-liberation/

    Note the similarities.

    You say, “but what if you unhitch yourself from the harness…”

    Welmer says, “the uplifting feeling one gets when laying down a heavy burden does much for the spirit…”

    I’m not sure if you and Karen are aware of it, but this is an extraordinary post. You’re both on to something here.

    1. This is very nearly the Galt’s Speech of the Men’s Rights Movement. You argue along the lines of Ayn Rand here to a degree that is almost comical. You’d do well to reed Atlas Shrugged. Rand didn’t see Gynocentrism as the cause of men’s enslavement; she saw altruism and collectivism. But she certainly hated feminism with a vengeance; and from where does feminism get it’s moral fire if not from altruism?

      I really think that advocates of Objectivism and MRAs have a lot in common and should cooperate.

      Thanks for a great article!

      1. Ayn Rand also became a “True believer” of Medicare as she spent the last eight years of her life fighting lung cancer. Seems old Ayn
        did not want to spend her considerable wealth. Instant Socialist!
        Yet the right wing, particularly Rep. Paul Ryan, A.K.A Eddie Munster,
        worships the blister.

  8. Our society demands that men (and voluntarily, women) EARN a living by exploitation of their disposable utility. To defy that, I quit my job and lose my home. It is appropriated by one without such defiance. The empty bedroom I would restore to my child’s use goes to the use of some other child instead. Mine no longer has a father’s home to stay away from. You are asking me to do the oppressors’ work for them. The difference between this and self immolation is merely a matter of degree.

  9. At root, all government involves the threat of “forcible and violent appropriation of funds from private citizens, and … direct violence of uniformed agents of the state and the courts”. Anything else is anarchy. Complaining about this in the first part of the article seriously weakens the argument.

    The better point is that first world government also involves two key mechanisms:
    1. Universal Suffrage (biased in favour of the majority, women)
    2. Widespread Compliance with the system (ie mainly men willingly ‘paying’ and women ‘consuming’).

    You are right to target Widespread Compliance as men’s primary weapon against the inherent bias of women’s voting majority and you are right that we haven’t found a way to mobilize this potentially powerful balancing weapon yet.

  10. Great article about a serious issue which is ignored by the feminist mainstream.

    Although I fear men’s rights activists are making a big mistake by blurring the lines between such important issues and a libertarian political stance.

    This is detrimental to the movement not least because libertarians are a minority of the population but also because it is far too similar to the feminists penchant for obscure utopian political ideologies like Marxism!

    By shooting so much of your excellent work through the prism of libertarianism you risk alienating great swathes of potential supporters.

    I for one agree with most issues raised by MRAs but the more I have to sit through libertarian prose -about the evils of government coercion etc- the more likely I am to switch off.

    Unfortunately since Paul Elam’s shrewd move not to side with Bernard Chapin and Rocking Me E in their partisan buffoonery the MRA is slowly but surely becoming more overtly libertarian (in an anarcho capitalist/Stefan Molyneaux sense)

    So many MRAs begin by making sense and raising important issues then just lose the plot and head off into Peter Schiff or even Glenn Beck territory.

    Babbling about the Frankfurt School and creeping communism is far too akin to conspiracy wingnuttery and turns off potential allies who might not think tax payer funded healthcare is such a bad idea.

    Equally waxing lyrical about a stateless paradise run on 100% free markets and the non aggression principle is far too close to the utopian theorizing of Marxists.

    Most of all forwarding a libertarian narrative just isn’t going to maximise support.

    It really is rather off putting.

    If you want to rally as many supporters as possible to the plight of veterans or fathers being ruined in family courts, waxing lyrical about how socialism is the thin end of the Stalinist wedge or how we need small government might not be a wise move.

    (Of course I’m not accusing you of saying Obamacare is communism or singing the praises of unfettered free markets in this article, nevertheless this article screams LIBERTARIAN)

    Whilst I have no problem with a plurality of political views -and find myself in agreement with some libertarian theory- I believe you risk narrowing support by blending men’s rights issues with libertarian political beliefs.

    1. You’re probably right, but what’s the alternative? The oppression of men/producers are made possible and maintained by the ideas of altruism and collectivism. Yes, many people support those ideas, and that’s the problem. The altruist-collectivist hydra must be destroyed by pro-reason, pro-individualism and pro-individual rights ideas. There is no other way to go.

  11. This monstruosity has been going on for millennia. It’s gynocentrism imposed as a heteronormative, binary system where men exist as builders, providers, protectors, enablers, general helpers, disposable drones, unpaid bodyguards, expendable soldiers, parental figures and sugar daddies, while females keep benefiting and calling this system a misogynistic patriarchy. And the irony (since you were talking of non violence and “humour”) the irony is that in the end this incredibly unfair and unequal system is called… “gender equality”. Precisely by the gender parasites who rule the system but build nothing. I am a little suspicious that those who suffer are the ones who sustain and finance such horror show. Males in nature, like spiders or praying mantis, turn themselves into food, and quite literally throw themselves into the hungry mouth of their females, who don’t hesitate but feast on their partners’ flesh knowing that their role has just come to an end. Males serve, if they don’t, they’re thrown out of the system, with little or no mercy. What can I say? There’s no end to this abomination because it’s the product of evolution. Men are biologically programmed to be what they are and to do what they do. A few of us have been enlightened. Most of us are blind. I care about men. And I love men. And for that reason I have been hated by my family. The literally threw me out. You’re not allowed to love men, what makes you think that you’re allowed to care about men?? You just can’t. Men are only allowed to see other men as the competition, a threat or a danger. Perhaps as a nuisance. An issue or a risk. Men are simply not allowed to empathise with other men, unless they join their forces for the sole reason of fighting and competing…. against other men, like in sports, war, politics and so on. Guys, maybe I’m not going to me humble, but let me tell you something. I know very well what I’m talking about. I’m an androphile. A homosexual man. Gay is the improbable, almost grotesque label given to men like me by our androphobic culture. Where gay means happy, where loving men is the most unhappy condition of all, in a world where you’re only allowed to hate other men. Please, let me give you my opinion. Then you do with it whatever you want. As an androphile I can tell you that nothing will ever change. Because if deep down inside of you, you dislike men but you’re attracted to females, then you’ll always see men as the competition you want to get rid of in order to have access to female sexuality. It’s biological. Men have evolved to predominantly dislike other males and be obsessed about female. It’s precisely what males do in nature. They fight against males while female stand there, watching… and selecting the most “useful” male. Neither males nor females have any mercy or respect for males who don’t make it. A male who won’t make it is a loser, a failure, a faggot, a wimp, a joke. You can’t complain about women or feminism or the system, if you’re not willing to look inside of you and start a deep, profound work of self criticism. I lately watched a video uploaded by mgtow sandman. He is a straight guy living in Canada. His videos are incredibly good and astoundingly spot on, especially on gender issues and misandry. He’s like the new barbarossaaaa or stardusk. But one of his latest videos left me quite speechless. He said that strait men don’t even look at other men in the eyes when they go out together, because they see that as a threat or as challenging one another, so in most circumstances most straight guys would just walk or sit side by side, so they can hear one another while avoiding eye contact and not feel threatened. If you think male homosexuality is an abomination of nature, after I heard those words, I started to see heterosexuality as the real, natural abomination. Because it is abominable to be biologically programmed to constantly see other men as either a threat or the enemy, to the point that straight men even have to avoid eye contact, if they don’t want to start a fight. Heteronormativity is a monstruosity of ginormous proportions. It reduces males to things used by nature for females. I know many of you have probably spent a long time criticising homosexuality. But I think the time has come to start some serious self criticism. I think it’s time for you to start criticising, and even challenging heterosexuality. Nothing is perfect. Nothing is above criticism. Nothing is untouchable. I believe it’s time for heterosexual men to look at heterosexuality with unbiased, rational, scientific minds. And perhaps you will finally see that it is a phenomenally misandric, androphobic system based on gynocentrism and masochism. You have literally no value. You are so not worth the attention of anyone. Because the sole fulcrum of heterosexuality is represented by the incubators of future human generations. You can’t spend the rest of your existence, pretending that you’re normal, your sexuality is natural and everything is fine. No it’s not fine. It’s not. Blaming others won’t do. Fuelling gynocentrism and heteronormativity won’t solve your problems. Shaming non gynophiles as perverts won’t erase misandry and androphobia. The problem is not that straight men hate gay men. The problem is that men hate men. Masculinity is self loathing at its core. And whoever will step out of this self hatred… will be hated. This generates an incubus. The only men that will be respected and tolerated are those men who disrespect and hate other men. And the paradox is that those men who care about men and love men and have a passion in men… will be hated by men. Can you see? Do you see the truth? I often say that there is NO such thing as homophobia. What people call homophobia is just super misandry and massive androphobia. You aren’t even allowed to have feelings for men. Hug a man and be shamed for the rest of your life. Women can hug other women without any fear. Fathers who are scared of showing too much physical attention to their sons. Mothers can hug and kiss their daughters all day long. The madness that you guys do to each other, to your own sons, to one another, to other men and boys. You won’t even look at your fellow men because of fear it might represent a threat or a challenge. What a nightmare. Thank goodness I’m not straight. I once wrote that I’d rather face a life of hatred because I’m an androphile, than a single day as a heterosexual man. Because it must be horrendous to live in this world hating men. I look at men and all I want to do is hug them. If that is sick. .. I’m glad I’m sick. My illness is the cure to misandry. Your normality is the origin of your nightmare.

    Think about my words. Can you see?

  12. Fabulous. And fabulous idea: “Violence [or the implied threat of it] is not made legitimate by the simple donning of a badge and uniform [during certain hours on certain days in certain physical locations,] and the collection of a pay check [for doing so or promising to do so].”

    And as Bruce Willis’ “Die Hard” hero John McClane would say, “Welcome to the party pal!”

    I’ve been part of the Liberty community generically for 20 years now, focusing on Gun-rights/Self-defense specifically, yet for only about the last three of those have I been aware of this specific, “Uniforms-don’t-grant-special-Rights” illustration which I have always attributed to Larken Rose and Stefan Molyneaux. I’m thrilled to see that you are bringing it to yet another entire community emerging from the Matrix-of-the State…it has been so brilliantly easy to recall and simple to enunciate I honestly can’t remember which of those two great thinkers I heard/read it from first.

    I expect disagreement over the video I’ll link to, but I believe that once the Matrix goo has been sufficiently wiped from one’s eyes, Larken Rose’s most provocative of questions – in regards to the above special snowflakes of the Uniform & Badge variety – must be pondered: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ9w1HHRMQw&list=UUFeK8ZdHbCqAq3gekWs8aEQ

    1. Channeling men’s issues into an obscure anti government/anarcho capitalist cul de sac will be the death of the men’s movement.

      I disagree completely with anarcho capitalism, I think it is utopian bunk but I have no problem with a plurality of political ideology.

      The problem arises when you want to maximise support for men’s issues. Plunging headlong into an unpopular, untested, utopian political ideology is potentially far more damaging and isolating than declaring socialism as your ideological drug of choice.

      Most people who are not Ayn Randian look to Western Europe for examples of socialism -which on the face of it- seem economically and socially successful. No such example free market fundamentalist anarchy is available so the majority will -rightly or wrongly- dismiss you as wingnuts.

      My advice to MRAs -who find themselves enamored by stateless anarchy, the non aggression principle and a society regulated solely by the whims of the market- is to separate the two.

      Pick an issue and run with it but don’t mix them together.

      I am open minded but most people are not.

      I realise that men’s issues are real and separate from the anarcho capitalist political theorizing of Stefan Molyneaux and co.

      I just filter out the libertarian prose and focus on the men’s issue being raised (yet this is becoming harder and harder the more evangelical about anarcho capitalism the MRA become)

      People hearing about men’s issues for the first time may be far more skeptical about the veracity of the claims raised by MRAs. Your aim should be to change their minds about the status of men in the modern West. This is no easy task, so why muddy thye waters with such a radical political ideology as anarcho capitalism?

      Once those who are still skeptical (but willing to listen to men’s issues) realise that MRAs are also preaching anti government anarchy and radical free market fundamentalism most will -rightly or wrongly- retreat from the MRA as a loopy, right wing political fringe.

      Mixing such a fringe political ideology with the serious issues raised by the MRM is a recipe -not for disaster- but obscurity.

  13. So when will we be filing for the Corporation “Manada” and issuing certificates of existence legal licenses to reside within that entity and promissory bond securities? Maybe another question is whether you or not you want to own your own balls.

    Trigger warning ethnic joke to follow………..

    Newfie #1 : Hey by, did you hear that Quebec is separating?

    Newfie#2 : Sure did by, isn’t it great!
    We’ll be that much closer to Taranna!
    (Toronto for those wondering)

Join the conversation