University of Toronto

What if you’re wrong?

What if you’re wrong?

On Thursday 4 April, 2013, that’s a question I asked individuals wearing masks, dressed in all black, swatting at me with placards, and shouting through bullhorns.

“MRAs telling lies! We won’t fall for your disguise!”

On the campus of the University of Toronto, this was chanted by self-styled feminists wearing masks. Do I need to point out the obvious stupidity of chanting “we wont fall for your disguise” while wearing masks? Their purpose in attending a scheduled presentation was to intimidate, to threaten, to silence and to attempt to prevent anyone from hearing the scheduled presentation by Drs Nathanson and Young. Those two being co-authors of the books Spreading Misandry, Sanctifying Misandry, and Legalizing Misandry.

Although I chose my moments, I asked this question repeatedly, and in answer, got a limited number of responses. The most popular would be that whoever had a megaphone would point it directly into my face, from inches away, to screech one of several chants with renewed volume and force.

“MRAs telling lies! We won’t fall for your disguise”.

“Shame on you and U of T, for allowing misogyny!”

“Women coming under attack! What do we do? Fight back!”

In one instance of asking this question, a large, masked individual bearing a wooden bludgeon and carrying a placard with my name on it, stepped between me and the feminists protesters. This was a man hiding his face as he threatened violence against anyone who might ask difficult questions, a white knight ready to dispense or absorb violence on behalf of his social betters; those who confer on him his identity as a good, compliant and obedient male.

He wasn’t quite stupid enough to actually strike me, even though his accompanying comrades had come masked and armed, the Bad People (myself and about a dozen other Men’s Human Rights Activists) were all armed with cameras. While I was expecting to be assaulted and was prepared not to raise my own hand in self-defense, I wasn’t clubbed to the ground – despite the published promise of violence from a subset of the U of T student’s union calling themselves by the exciting moniker “The Revolutionary Student’s Movement”.

“What if you’re wrong?” I asked the masked and bludgeon-carrying “protestors” chanting about disguises while beating the floor of the hallway, outside the lecture hall. They responded with the butt-ends of their clubs. “What if you’re wrong?” I repeated. Several of the bludgeons were re-positioned from spear-end floor drumming to hockey-stick blade-style floor beating, directly towards me. I expect this was intended to intimidate me. It didn’t work, not because I’m any kind of brave or tough, it failed to work because I expected it.

I asked yet again: What if you’re wrong?

The answer? Threatening gestures with contrived weapons from the masked members of an angry, shouting mob.

These are the same people who ironically claim, usually without smirking, that their ideology is simply the belief in “equality”. Elevated screaming the preferred response — to drown out the question, or in that question’s persistent asking, the direct and unmistakable threat of extreme violence?

Apparently incoherent screaming and violence is the sum and total of the argument fielded by gender ideologues against anyone addressing the human rights concerns of men and boys – from outside the camp of modem mainstream gender ideology because if there was a coherent argument from the camp of gender ideology, wouldn’t we have heard it by now?

“Patriarchy, Fuckface!!” and “Shut the fuck up!!”. That was offered repeatedly in response and with enthusiasm by the individual given the nickname “Big Red” although this is not, I’m sorry to say, a coherent argument.

“What if you’re wrong?” was asked of the members of an “equality” movement whose response to criticism and to differing opinion was censorship, intimidation and the threat of violence. To be clear, I am not making an argument that these ideologues and protesters are wrong in their characterizations of those of us who disagree. Rather, it is simply a real question. What if, in their enthusiasm to silence, to threaten, and to condemn – these social justice warriors have picked the wrong side of an actual human rights movement?

What if (in spite of their screeching insistence that anyone not conforming to their own narrow conception of “correct” thinking – academics, educators, human rights activists and even non-conforming feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers) all these people they are opposing do not advocate the legalization of rape? What if Dr Warren Farrell, a world-renowned educator and senior academic, is not an advocate of incest, and what if he further does not think rape is exciting? Those two claims were made repeatedly by gender ideologues, based on a single out-of-context quote by Dr Farrell.

What if the activists at AVfM, which include men, women, gays, lesbians, of every continent and ethnicity, are not actually a clan of woman-hating, rape-enabling violent terrorists and ingesters of kittens? What if the consistent message of the writing at AVfM is the humanity of men and boys, and the equivalent humanity, as well as adult responsibility of women? What if we actually mean what we say in more than 1900 feature-length articles so far published on the site?

What if the female principals at AVFM, including Karen Straughan, Kristina Hansen, Asha James, Dr Tara Palmatier, Dr Elly Tams, Suzanne McCarley, and Erin Pizzey – what if these are self-determined women and NOT puppets of the evil patriarch Paul (Male) Elam? What if these women have not simply internalized their own misogyny?

What if the Men’s Human Rights Movement is exactly what it says it is, a grass-roots human rights movement?

I’m not claiming in this article that the M(H)RM is this, I’m just asking: what if?

Consider the most recent and splashy actions of those who oppose this movement: the attempts to silence; the attempts in Toronto to bring violence to the conversation; the published intention to use violence against any identified Men’s Human Rights Activists followed by the carrying of wooden bludgeons by the “protesters” of the Nathanson and Young lecture at the U of T.

What if, reading this right now, you are one of those masked, bludgeon-carrying individuals? Was it the cameras that stopped you from going any farther? Without a durable video record of your behavior, would you have bashed in some heads in that hallway?

Indeed, there is video on the web now of the gender ideologues “protesting” that event, claiming that the speaker at that event supports rape. Notwithstanding that Dr Farrell supports no such thing, you protesters didn’t even know who you were protesting. When challenged on the context of the quote, mined from Dr Farrell’s writing and stripped of Dr Farrell’s intended meaning, most of you admitted you had read nothing of his work.

You admitted a nearly total ignorance of the nature of his writing and work. When corrected on just who was speaking that you were so eager to protest, did you re-asses your absolute condemnation of the event? Nope. In video recorded by independent film-maker Stephen Brule, at least two of you said “anyway” or “whatever” and changed the topic. You didn’t even know who was speaking or what you were so eager to silence. You didn’t even want to know who or what you were silencing.

So. What if you’re wrong?

Hell. What if you’re right? What if all the outrageous claims, the rape apologetics, the incest support, the internalized misogyny by every female MHRA and the deep down evil of every male MHRA – what if all that is true?

What if the evidence of all this malice-claimed-by-you was right inside the doors? What if Dr Paul Nathanson hates women and homosexuals? Nevermind that he is gay. What if Dr Katherine Young hates women and supports the rape of children? What if Dr Warren Farrell really does support incest and rape? What if AVfM’s Dan Perrins and John the Other are violent, woman hating monsters?

You did your level best to erase the evidence of this claimed-by-you misogyny. Why? Shouldn’t exposing these monsters be at the top of your to-do list? How do you expect to succeed in your great social justice project by suppressing the “evidence” of your own claims?

For that matter, how do you imagine bringing a bludgeon will help your cause when those you oppose bring cameras? How can censorship help you at an event which had the explicit purpose of open communication and dialog?

Considering that is, if you’re right.

What if it turns out that you are on the wrong side of history? What if you are fighting against a valid human rights movement? You know, fighting against a valid human rights movement with bull horns, threats of violence and bludgeons?

What if you’re wrong?

  • 86

    “The Revolutionary Student’s Movement?” Oh, I thought we were the Student’s Revolutionary Movement.

    • Kimski

      No, we’re the Movement for Revolutionizing Students.
      :D

      Wish I could give you upvotes for this one, JtO.

      • Talby

        Just don’t associate with the Revolutionary Movement for Students. That guy’s an idiot!

        • Laddition

          Sorry Monty Python, but I can’t resist.

          ‘The Popular Revolutionary Front for Students’ is over there – meeting in the phone booth.

          • Murray Pearson

            SPLITTERS!

    • http://www.johntheother.com John Hembling (JtO)

      Splitter!

  • 86

    JtO, I was very impressed with how you handled yourself on the Big Red Tapes. I know that AVFM doesn’t run these meetings — I do wonder what might happen if the organizers of the meetings went up to one or two of the protesters, presumably the leaders or their delegates, and invited them into the meeting, promising them they would be given the chance to ask the third question and a followup during any Q&A if they wished.

    • tallwheel

      I would love to see a civilized Q&A between Big Red and Warren Farrell (or between any one of the protesters and any one of the speakers from previous CAFE talks on men’s issues for that matter). The protesters might be surprised by the civilized and fair answers they are likely to receive.

      • Laddition

        “I would love to see a civilized Q&A between Big Red and Warren Farrell”

        I’d agree with ‘love to’, but my main reaction would be amazement. Big Red Foaming Loudmouth doesn’t appear to do Questions and Answers, just Accusations and STFUs.

        I don’t blame her, after all she hasn’t got any reasoned responses to reasoned questions. Just drama, hysteria and diva-dom. That’s the problem when you spread your amoral wings and depart from reason…the facts don’t come with you, so you can’t defend yourself against them.

        At least if she dyes her hair back from red she can probably pass in sane society (till she opens her gob), smart move there, Beclowning herself in the LSM wasn’t quite so smart, assuming that she even noticed.

      • prince_tybalt
    • prince_tybalt

      This is what happened when one of them spoke with protesters:

      http://eyeofwoden.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/janice-fiamengo-the-protester-variety-show/

  • Usagi Yojimbo

    The question, simple to answer to an individual who is introspective, is one that parroting individuals like these protestors can’t answer.

    So shallow are their beliefs, so dogmatic are their mantras, that if the facade of what they believe is wiped away by trying to answer the question, they will only show their own hatred and bigotry, something they are not able to deal with. To quote Lovecraft: “…that (they) shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

    The question is one that I ask myself about the MRM. Are we wrong? With the overwhelming amount of evidence and social weight proving otherwise, I can’t say we are. However, as the ones who have to be purveyors of reason, logic, and facts, we have to ask and answer the question, “What if you’re wrong?” to ourselves.

    I have made it known that I fear the radicalization of the MRM, as the radicalization of feminism has been allowed and their violent tendencies towards half the human race. Asking this question and forcing ourselves to answer it honestly and critically is one way, at least I believe, to help make sure we don’t become the enemy we dread.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      So, when you ask yourself that question, what answers do YOU come up with?

      I ask myself that question every step of the way.

      I picture my daughter’s and granddaughter’s faces every step of the way and ask “Is this right? Is this fair and just to you? Will there be unseen repercussions of injustice if this is granted to men and boys?”

      Because that is a question I have always asked along the way with Feminism, and time after time after time the answer had been “No”.

      “No, it isn’t fair or just that my brother was forced into conscription and I was not.”

      It isn’t fair or just that men are considered “guilty” when it’s a woman’s word against his. It’s isn’t humane that as a woman I KNOW my ass is covered in the event of divorce or unwanted pregnancy (even if I’m the one in the wrong), or should I lose my job or income while men sleep on the streets in the snow knowing they are blamed for their own decisions and sorrows.”

      As a woman I know I can simultaneously say “Pig! I can open my OWN doors, thank you, and “Oh my Gawd, how dare a man save himself and leave me behind to drown!”

      “As the mother of sons, I ask myself why my son’s chances of going to prison as an innocent person are as likely as the chances of my beautiful daughter getting out of a speeding ticket?”

      …or why a 13 year old boy is considered more adult and legally responsible than the 40 year old woman who raped him?”

      I ask myself a lot of questions in that same vein, and ask myself why men allowed this imbalance in the first place.

      So yes, I’m watching, alright. I’ve got my eye on you guys…

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    Bravo JTO , seems the UT protesters have never been given a “compare and contrast” exercise to complete. These are one of the best exercises to see if students understand opposing views on a topic.

    Compare and contrast

    Cameras to bludgeons
    Identity hidden to identity associated with views
    Polite debate to shouting and chanting slogans
    Exposing the opponents ideas to suppressing their ideas
    Free speech to suppression of free speech
    knowing whom you are opposing to not knowing
    Logic to illogic
    Right to wrong
    Feminism to social justice and human rights for all

  • http://www.woolybumblebee.com/about Kristina Hansen

    Well said John. Well said indeed.

  • Fredrik

    “… Paul (Male) Elam?”

    Holy $%^&! “Elam” is “male” backwards! Paul Elam = male lupa = wolfman. Clearly, he’s telling us that he’s a werewolf. How did I never notice that before?!

    • Bombay

      Good observation! LOL – love the irony.

    • Near Earth Object

      I first noticed that during the most recent fundraiser, Kirderf ;)

  • Mateusz Wacek

    Excellent article, and a very important question. The answers to it (or lack thereof) tell plenty about just who our opponents are, and what they really stand for.

    “Because incoherent screaming and violence is the sum and total of the argument fielded by gender ideologues against anyone addressing the human rights concerns of men and boys – from outside the camp of modem mainstream gender ideology.”

    Orwell totally called it.

    “Then there came a moment when the first shock had worn off and when, in spite of everything-in spite of their terror of the dogs, and of the habit, developed through long years, of never complaining, never criticising, no matter what happened-they might have uttered some word of protest. But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of-

    “Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!”

    It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse.”

    When you have nothing to answer criticism, no logic, reason, no justification, no coherent arguments, you can still shout slogans in unison, drowning out the other side with loudness.

  • malcolm

    John, do you realize that you’re asking them to think.
    Thinking isn’t tolerated at Canadian universities any more.

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    And more balanced ( compare and contrast) Mainsteram media reporting!!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/15/mens-rights-millennial-males-canada_n_3061876.html

    • 86

      Note to AVFM: You should update register-her with links to this piece (and the freezepage of this piece)

    • 86

      With now two of these fairly balanced pieces coming out, AVFM and its readers should tweet them, facebook them widely, but especially to other reporters.

      I have the impression that there’s this huge game of political correctness being played and like the penguin on the frozen ice shelf worried about sharks, no reporter wants to be the first one bumped into the water. But after a penguin goes in and the other penguins see he’s not eaten, then they all jump in too.

      Would it be useful to follow up these two news articles with official AVFM letters to the UofT Student Union, or the UofT Regents asking them to stop their harassment of AVFM and urging them to support CAFE and men’s groups at the University?

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Why is it I think that if they could, those protestors would have turned firehoses and dogs on you?

  • http://fathers4fairness.blogspot.ca/ fathers4fairness
    • Rog

      ok i read that and it sounds pretty scary for feminists to disappear into the clergy and fester like a wound for decades preaching feminism to trusting religious people the comments sound like typical feminists shaming stuff

    • Fredrik

      What I got from that article is that the papacy (which actually is patriarchal) had a process in progress before the change in figurehead. The new pope might be more sympathetic to the 80% of U.S. nuns that are focused on social justice issues, but he also has more urgent problems to address than some privileged American chicks getting educated in message discipline.

      More urgent problems like priests diddling kids, each other, and the bank.

      So how do you turn “I have other priorities” into “feminism is teh sux”? The Vatican is the most likely institution to be anti-feminist, and yet I don’t think that the article supports your conclusion.

  • externalangst

    “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” – Oliver Cromwell

    These days, unfortunately, in order to qualify for admission to the non-technical programs at university, students need to have demonstrated an incapacity for original or creative thinking.

    Entertaining ideas not approved by the feminist narrative would earn that student a fail in high school and subsequent non-admission to university. In this way, dissent from the doctrine is minimalized.

    Asking these ‘students’ to consider that they may be mistaken is a waste of time. They have a demonstrated (and rewarded) capacity of being brain-dead to reality and facts. Otherwise they would have been driven out of their humanities and social studies faculties.

    Their closed, closeted world of perfect moral superiority protects them from outside influence but not from public opinion. The good news is that these faculties have recruited fools for students to support the fools on staff. What else could they have done?

    Therein lies the seeds for their own downfall. The public needs only see the delusional moral vanity and dangerous one dimensional thinking of these intellectuals for them to be exposed as impostors. They are a one-trick pony – censorship, mobbing and intimidation. They’ve tried their one trick – and it is no longer working.

  • All Contraire

    What if they are just a bunch of dumb trash-fascist thugs without a clue as to what they are protesting for or against but loving themselves doing it and chomping at the bit to beat somebody up and get away with it?

    • mac

      then we continue to question their statements and make it public that its only hate and BS they are spreading, just like always.

      and NO, i have no clue why i am answering a rethorical question^^

  • Booyah

    The cries of misogyny while demonstrating such hatred and contempt for mens humans rights issues would be almost ironically funny, if it wasn’t for the fact that its become so predictable from feminists, that any man on the planet could see the punchline of the joke coming before the joke even started.

  • https://twitter.com/MarkTrueblood Mark Trueblood

    As an opinionated fellow who learns every day how much I do NOT know, I always keep in mind that reasonable people can disagree fundamentally on certain issues and still be reasonable.

    And though I think most of my perspectives are fairly sound, I am totally open to be proven wrong with sound refutation. If the pushback we were getting was on that level, I would be appreciative. That is not the pushback we are getting.

    A small sampling of what we are getting are as follows:

    “Men’s Rights are Human Rights.” “No.”

    “Men have no issues.”

    “I don’t care about the suffering of men. Women are more important.”

    “Equality is stupid. Women are biologically superior.”

    “Feminism is fighting for men’s issues, so everyone who cares about men’s issues should shut up.”

    “Feminism doesn’t hate men, it hates the Patriarchy.” (Which just so happens to be a system allegedly designed by men, for men.)

    “Men who advocate on behalf of other men are qu*er.” (I got told that not too long ago, by a self-described Feminist and Progressive Democrat.)

    The fact that I (and we) hear arguments like the above WAY more than we hear reasoned counterarguments speaks volumes.

    And again, I am moved to ask the “good Feminists” – why, oh why, do you insist on marching in the same parade as these people?

    • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suzanne McCarley

      Exactly. I’ve been waiting patiently for nearly two years for a rational, reasonable and logical refutation of MHRA issues; I’d even listen to proof that these problems are being blown out of proportion.

      None has been forthcoming, and it’s not like feminists haven’t had decades to line up the facts and prepare their arguments.

      • https://twitter.com/MarkTrueblood Mark Trueblood

        Or, they start out with a rational counterargument and then go straight to attacks and fallacies when you poke holes in their first attempt.

        • mac

          exactly. as you mentioned before in other words, it would be downright hilarious if it wasn’t so sad

  • criolle johnny

    That “elevated, incoherent screaming” response to your question is also known as a “Liberal Debate”.
    In a more polite society it is known as “shouting down”.

    • Jotty

      There is just as much shouting down coming from the conservative side of the aisle (though not necessarily on this particular topic). This movement stands no chance in the long run if you alienate half of your potential allies with asinine statements like these.

      • Kosh

        No kidding. The first thing that I thought when I read Johnny’s comment was “So Bill O’Reilly’s a liberal now? When did that happen?”

  • MGTOW-man

    “What if, in such enthusiasm to silence, to threaten, and to condemn – these social justice warriors have picked the wrong side of an actual human rights movement?”
    —They do not like our movement because if they agree—as they very well should… if they really have any commonsense— then they, as women mostly, will not get their way all the time. In their warped minds this translates into “hatred for women.”

    Stupid? Sure, But they are too oblivious to not only see it, but even being aware of how they act, think, and believe relative to how it all hurts this world and ultimately its inhabitants.

    See, they are amidst their own confusion of reality. While not really knowing what equality means and must entail, they still go with what makes them FEEL better. Their emotions control them. Why believe that their emotions do not change their perceptions of reality? How could one’s control (as compared to self-control) not get influenced by emotions if indeed their emotions are what drives them?

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    Femi-fascists you’re asinine,

    foisting lies that barely rhyme.

    Femi-fascists you just blinked.

    Everyone saw that you can’t think.

    Femi-fascists where’s the truth?

    Not within your nutty group. ;-)

  • Robert St. Estephe

    They cannot be wrong. There is no right and wrong according to “critical theory” indoctrination. All that matters is attacking the “hegemony” (European-ethnic heterosexual males). This is the “negative dialectic.” They do not want to discover truth (too much work). They just want to “transgress.” (the joy of vandalism and temper tantrums).

    • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

      Moral relativism (there is no right and wrong – all views are equally valid) is a big part of their philosophy, yet they say that MRA’s tell lies. How hypocritical of them, and might I add, “intolerant.” They behave like the pigs in the book “Animal Farm:” “All animals are equal, but some animals [pigs] are more equal.”

    • mac

      so they are basicly grown up people with the mindset of (pretty stupid) 12 year old teenagers ?

  • Nightwing1029

    JTO,
    Did you ever get a coherent response to your question?

  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    JTO,

    You are speaking WAY too much truth my friend. They refused to bother reading anything bigger than a feminist pamphlet, writing this much truth will only collapse their brains.

  • Near Earth Object

    Kudos to John the Philosopher, for bringing one of the most potent words (if) and questions (what if) to bear on those who would sooner-die, than think for themselves.

    Outstanding JtO!

    if is the middle word in life…

  • Shortcircuit

    “What if you’re wrong?”

    Being wrong gives another the opportunity to better explain why you are wrong, and thus still manages to further the cause of truth. Appreciating this takes honesty and maturity, which these feminists apparently lack.

    They are driven, I suspect, by feminist professors and others who see their own jobs threatened. They need feminism to hang on until they retire, having sold their toxic goods to the next generation of suckers who have little chance of doing the same. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit.

  • Aimee McGee

    Just discussing the whole issue of admitting wrong thinking on a Quaker site.
    Being able to admit error in thinking is widespread – thanks to the failure to teach critical thinking and rational analysis skills in childhood

    • mac

      i really don’t want to be the grammar nazi (especially in a language which isn’t my first), but for the sake of improving my english i have to ask:
      shouldn’t it be: “Being able to admit error in thinking isN’T widespread” or did i just get your comment completely wrong?

      • Near Earth Object

        Hey mac,

        I guess that Aimee is the only one who can tell us what she meant.

        Yours works!

        Mine: ‘Being unable to admit error in thinking is widespread.

        Good luck with your second language—English. (a capital E)

        I am unilingual and still working on my only language.

  • Fredrik

    The obligatory response of Richard Dawkins, in a much different context.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    Mr Hembling thank you for this questionnaire.

    The feminist protesters have answered your salient inquiries with the silence from their shouting. That irony screams as a jet over their heads.

    I was impressed by your astounding presence of fearlessness. In the muck and mire of it all, swirling up to your neck, you were just there witnessing. You were plonked in the middle of a great noisy flesh doughnut just itching for you to fall. Their dreaming of that remained urgent and unfulfilled, and perhaps this is another example of how they all have been robbed by the patriarchy? Again?

    Look at the comments here from this organisation about this incident. It’s pretty bloody obvious mate that you absorbed quite your fill of frustration yet have delivered their message none the less.

    Their message? Yes, they scream it not from their mouths, but from the silence of addressing your questions. That speaks for them loudest, not their megaphones.

    Look how the television reportage has picked up on this story. Is it possible that this is an expected and remarkable development?

    I’m answering with a Big-Red megaphone – oh yes it is.

    More to come from the telly and the net as the word is getting out, and maybe just maybe this is exponential too?

    I think it is. I think they know it is.

    • Near Earth Object

      “More to come from the telly and the net as the word is getting out, and maybe just maybe this is exponential too?”

      I am seeing exponentiality.
      I am not wrong. :)

  • KeanoReeves

    Guys, just think this through- Feminism is a FUNDAMENTALIST movement!!!

    It first tries to change everyone to its way of thinking. Entering Univs and Courts is a strategy all fundamentalists follow. Laws are created to destroy people who are ‘other’, mercilessly.

    Open statements about Eugenics, Killing 90% of men, all men are rapists (original sin????), etc. etc.

    When you deal with it you are labeled a rapist/rape apologize (heateh) by screaming believers. It wants to change everyone to their way of thinking by using the sword (VAWA, DV), Ever wondered how the feminists think that they are superior to you because they think all men are equal, and you don’t? This IS FUNDAMENTALISM!!!

    • Kosh

      This reminds me of a signature I saw on UseNet way back when (during the days when it was a FREE message service and not a pay service for pirating movies):

      Fundamentalism: fund –> to give money. amentalism –> without brains.

  • meanlevee

    When I heard this read on Youtube, I found it quite stimulating. For what it’s worth, bravo.

  • StraightBrownMale

    “Revolutionary”

    Sounds like deluded leftists looking for victimhood.

    Hey, how come none of these compassionate people call out their own for threatening others with weapons?