Don’t mistake my nonviolence for pacifism

As feminism sinks into irrelevance its more dogmatic adherents have become increasingly violent. This is particularly true in Canada where feminists now have quite a track record of physical attacks and violent disruptions against anyone who disagrees with them. Their violence is supported and enabled by the Canadian government as well as the media.

All this is very concerning, especially since it is emanating from a country known for maintaining a peaceful society.

And now we have an even more contentious situation developing with PUA Roosh in that country. Since entering there he has been threatened repeatedly and assaulted by a woman throwing a drink on him. Twitter is alive right now with Canadian feminists urging people to do him further harm, even as far as to set him on fire.

Full disclosure here. To say I am not a fan of Roosh is an understatement. As I have said before, I see the man as a huckster, someone who manipulates men’s insecurities about women; a mere plaid jacket and cheap cigar away from running a used car sales lot. That, however, is not the important matter at hand.

The fact is that Roosh, and people like him, are well on their way to being placed in real physical danger from die hard feminists reacting to the curtain starting to fall on their sick ideology. When I say “people like him,” I am talking about anyone who dissents honestly from feminism. That includes me and a lot of other people in the MHRM who are braving the shift in social consciousness with our real faces and names out there.

In fact, we have been in the threat zone far longer than Roosh.

As the craziness intensifies, and it certainly will, feminists will become even more violent and dangerous. Individuals who disagree with them and say so publicly may need to take stock.

The MHRM is a nonviolent movement. AVFM is doggedly antiviolence. We ban people from this place for even hinting at violent retribution against feminists or their enablers. Those positions, however, should not be confused with the intention to meet physical attacks with turning the other cheek.

Being an advocate for nonviolent change does not mandate anyone to be a punching bag.

In the case of Roosh, a feminist threw a drink on him. Another feminist on Twitter suggested that people should pay attention to the fact that alcohol is combustible. It was retweeted and favorited several times.

So here is the proposition that is difficult. In the minds of most people self-defense is human right. I am also venturing a guess most people would believe that any response to violence should be proportional.

In other words the aim is to respond to violence with sufficient force to meet and stop the threat and no more. I agree with this approach. Someone slapping me does not give me the right to shoot them.

The problem in this scenario is that the decision on proportion is not quite that simple. Extreme feminists have become pathologically violent. So called moderate feminists, and even equity feminists have thus far remained mostly silent about it. In that they continue to feed and enable extremism while claiming they have no connection to it.

Here’s the deal. Given the current climate it becomes rationally questionable whether a feminist throwing a flammable liquid on me intends to ignite it. My personal option at this point would be to assume they would. Thus I would make my response proportional to someone trying to incinerate me. That means they would have to go down and at the very least be completely incapacitated, by any means necessary.

Personally, I think it would be a really bad idea to wait till you see them strike a match. It is now reasonable assume that this is what they are going to do.

This position does not come without some potential cost. First, if a feminist throws a drink on me and I respond by knocking them unconscious, I will likely be arrested. Of course, if I hit a female feminist who is aiming a flamethrower at me I will also go to jail, so the distinction is mox nicht.

The question for me is whether I will risk being immolated in order to not be arrested. I won’t. And while each person has to make their own decision I don’t suggest anyone roll the dice on these insane ideologues.

Much of this could be avoided, though. One option is for MRAs to throw in the towel and bow to violent ideologues. On Planet Earth, there is a better solution than that. It would be for feminists to start self-policing and rid themselves of violent advocates. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a place on Planet Earth where any feminists willing to confront the sickness in their movement exist.

In the end I am betting this time of crisis will not be long lived. The feminist narrative is increasingly being recognized for the joke that it is. The time will soon come when very few people will even admit to being a feminist, much less take the risk of assaulting people in its name.

Till that happens, though, I think feminists of all kinds should be aware that belonging to a nonviolent movement does not mean you are a pacifist.

As an MHRA I am willing to die for my beliefs. I only think it prudent to caution that I am equally willing to kill to protect myself.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: