The Process of Radicalization
Following the reported assassination of Osama Bin Laden, a Radio NZ National Radio interview this morning with Marc Sageman, a former CIA operations manager with the Afghan task force, was interesting. I quote:
“Well, the process of radicalisation is a two-step process; one, you join a protest counter-culture against the discrimination and persecution of Muslims worldwide, but this is not terrorism, this is very much a protest, this is legal; and then when you realise that your legal forms of protest are totally ineffective in the face of great atrocity, and usually those are innocent Muslims dying abroad, what people call collateral damage, people decide to actually, out of moral outrage, to do more, and they decide to take things into their own hands. They think that non-violent protest is just talk, talk, talk, totally ineffective, and they appoint themselves as soldiers protecting this worldwide community, and then proceed along the turn to political violence. So this is the process.”
It seems to me that the feminist war against men is full of great atrocities. Men are thrown in prison for long durations, essentially political prisoners under feminist dictate. Men are sent to their death in great numbers in various occupational roles for which they are then scorned and resented by feminists because, for example, they earn slightly more on average than do women in much safer occupational roles. And, unlike Muslims (except perhaps in a few middle-eastern areas) the discrimination and persecution against men is done blatantly, now enshrined in the laws of feminist states, and is done on the basis of men’s gender rather than the actuality of each man’s behaviour. Legal protest, talk, talk, talk is what men are trying to do about it, but that is unlikely to continue for much longer.
A small illustration of feminist persecution in today’s news: According to the story, Mark Coldicutt, a man who had given 25 years of his life to volunteer firefighting to protect his community in Hastings, was out partying on New Years Eve when he saw, in a bar, a woman whom he had known for many years and who had previously engaged in casual sex with him. At about 4am he walked to her house, entered through her unlocked door, slipped into bed with her and tried to lift her clothing.
Well, that’s NOT OK and he needs to know that. But in my opinion, if this was a first offence (likely, since no mention was made of previous offending), a sensible and humane society would give this man a warning for what appeared to be an ill-considered, alcohol-affected but probably benign attempt to seduce a woman who had previously demonstrated willingness to have casual sex with him. He may have been brought readily to realize that the woman found his visit unpleasant and unwanted, and a warning would probably have caused him to avoid any similarly misguided efforts at seduction in future. If the Court did not believe he recognized his error, I would support perhaps a conviction and fine to bring home the point. However, I would not support his name going on a sex offenders’ register yet that is what feminist law will do to encourage life-long extrajudicial punishment for his rather harmless mistake. But we don’t have a sensible, humane society towards men; we have feminist law. He was sentenced to 2 years 8 months in prison. I cannot be certain because I was not present at the trial, but my guess is that the woman’s previous sexual behaviour with this man was not allowed to be mentioned because that is one of the ways in which feminist law now prevents accused men from explaining their actions to help the Court gain some reasonable understanding of them.
Mr Coldicutt’s prison sentence was much longer than a first offender might receive for kicking another man’s head so as to cause permanent neurological damage. Even kicking a man to death when you have already knocked him unconscious was seen by the Court as deserving only 2 years 10 months in prison.
Ah yes, but a mistaken attempt to seduce a woman, touching her gently without explicit permission (but desisting as soon as she objects), thinking to give her a pleasant surprise but instead giving her a fright, now that’s really serious. Feminists no doubt would prefer the death penalty for any man who shows such effrontery. Well, when we treat stalwarts of selfless contribution to society in the manner Mr Coldicutt has been treated, we are creating legions of bitter, angry men. Their ranks are fast growing as other men become aware of what’s happening. As men mobilize, increasingly violent repression and widespread killing of men will soon be feminism’s only recourse.