Why Violence Is Often Justified

on Darren Mack's sentence and why violence is 'justified' ...

Hi Harry

Darren Mack [who murdered his wife and attempted to murder the judge] has just been sentenced to a minimum of 36 years.

I wonder if you would comment given the piece you did about him.  [Darren Mack].

Would you still support a man like Mack and argue that he should be 'exonerated'?

M

Darren Mack

Hi M

I don't think I ever suggested that Mack, himself, should be exonerated and, at the time that I wrote the piece, my main point was that it was both dishonest and disingenuous for MRA authors to assume in advance that men who murdered their partners - like Mack - were simply bad or 'evil'.

And I still hold to that position.

I have not followed the Mack case, but the snippets that I have come across here and there suggest to me that he was a rather unpleasant individual who is not deserving of much sympathy.

But, who knows? - given that men are almost invariably demonised very heavily in these particular situations.

Had he been a woman, you can bet your last dollar that he would have been portrayed in a completely different light.

Furthermore, I still hold on to the view that anybody who takes away a man's children and/or his home deserves little sympathy if they suffer significant retribution.

I suppose that for some men, arguing their case in court is a reasonable option, but for many men - particularly the less intelligent, the less wealthy, the less articulate and/or the less able they are to deal with officialdom - such an option is going to get them nowhere. And so, in my view, violence is not only understandable and predictable, but also morally quite justifiable.

 If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.

To put it bluntly: If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.

Would most people say that a woman who is being raped is not entitled to react violently against the perpetrator?

No, they would not.

Most people would argue that a woman in such a situation is perfectly entitled to react with violence.

Well, most people would also say that they would rather be raped than lose their homes and children. In other words, losing one's home and children is worse than being raped.

And so if a woman who is being raped is justified in reacting with violence, then there is even more justification for violence when a home and children are at stake.

Well, that's my view.

But let me just take this issue a little further.

Imagine, for the moment, that instead of flying planes into the twin towers on 9/11, the terrorists had just taken them over.

They kicked everybody out and said, "No American can come into these buildings ever again."

Do you think that the state would simply have sat by and accepted this?

No. The state would have gone in with its guns blazing.

If a group of MRAs took over a judge's home and said, "This judge can never enter his home again," do you think that the state would simply sit by and accept this?

No. The state would use violence.

Well, I see very little difference in principle between such scenarios and men being denied access to their own homes and children. And so if it is acceptable for the state to use violence in the above circumstances then I believe that it is acceptable for men to use violence in circumstances which are similar.

Of course, there is a legal argument which would say that it is legal for men to be denied access to their own homes and children but it is not legal for a group to take over the twin towers or the homes of judges.

So what?

Just because something is legal, this does not make it moral.

Just because something is legal, this does not make it moral. And just because something is illegal, this does not make it immoral.

Besides which, laws are made by people, not by gods. And, these days, many laws are made by people who are thoroughly corrupt, and who are pursuing their own feminist-dominated agendas. Morality and fairness do not come into their equations. Indeed, their 'relationship' laws are specifically designed to break up men's families and their relationships.

We know that these laws are designed to debilitate men.

And given that the state is supportive of these thoroughly unjust laws, and, further, that the state would use violence to uphold them, then it seems to me that men are perfectly entitled to use violence in order to counter them.

And if you argue that men should not use violence in order to try to combat the taking away of their homes and children then you must also argue that women should not use violence in order to try to combat an attack by a rapist - because, I repeat, in the eyes of most people - including my own - the former is far worse an injury than the latter.

Indeed, when the state commits 'crimes', this is a far, far more heinous situation for the whole of society than when individuals do such things. And this was recognised in the old days when, for example, it was said that it was far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted by the state for a crime that he did not commit.

Nowadays, however, the state seems to commit crimes - mostly against men - with relative impunity.

This situation is absolutely intolerable, and if it takes violence to stop the state committing such crimes then, quite frankly, it is something that will/might need to be done. 

To see just how completely unacceptable it is for state officials to engage in crimes, let us just get a feel for a few 'crimes' and their perpetrators.

If my memory is correct, there are about 15,000 homicides every year in the USA. Most of these are committed by individuals.

 what if these 15,000 homicides were mostly carried out by the state?

But what if these 15,000 homicides were mostly carried out by the state?

Such a thing would be absolutely terrible. The whole of America would live in fear.

There are probably millions of thefts committed every year in the USA - most of them by individuals. But what if most of them were committed by state officials?

What if most rapes were committed by state officials?

You can surely see that while it is one thing for us to abuse each other - kill each other, rape each other, deceive each other, steal from each other, deny each other access to each other's homes and children - it really is quite another thing for the state to engage in such activities.

Indeed, a crime that is committed by the state - i.e. by its officials - is a thousand times worse for a society than is one committed by individuals.

As such, crimes by the state must not be tolerated - at any level.

And so when, for example, the state - i.e. its officials - acts in a corrupt manner, when it deceives us, when it prosecutes innocents with impunity, when it stacks the justice system against certain people, when it kicks people out of their own homes etc etc - i.e. when it seriously 'abuses' people - then people have every right to react with violence if they cannot gain redress through any other means.

And if people do not react strongly when the state commits crimes, then we are well and truly lost, and we will be heading (as we seem to be) towards complete subservience to those who are, in practice, simply serving themselves.

Indeed, we will end up going back to the days when the governing elites behaved (and believed themselves to be) like gods and treated everyone else like slaves.

And when it comes to the family ('relationship') courts, this has actually been happening already.

And, for example, I still find it totally incredible that men can sit back and watch judges punish and/or incarcerate men for sexual assaults and domestic violence etc etc without having any proper evidence that any crime has been committed, and, as a further example, that they are prepared to tolerate a justice system that allows them not only to be removed from their own homes and children but then to have to continue paying for them!

 the consequences for many men are very dire and lifelong.

And the results of such things are very often not just major aggravations, they are often very serious indeed and completely life-damaging. Whether it is having their children taken out of their lives or having to bear the consequences of false sex-assault allegations (with their faces also being shoved into the public arena by the media) the consequences for many men are very dire and lifelong.

And it is the state that is doing these things to them.

This is not some deranged individual, or some unlucky happenstance. This is the state actually doing these things to men - and doing so knowingly.

These are state officials acting like wanton thugs.

And, in my view, this state of affairs is completely and utterly unacceptable.

And what makes all of this so very much more appalling is that the state actually encourages women to use its resources to inflict injustices on to men - through many avenues - and, further, it provides almost no services to men who are need of help.

In other words, when it comes to relationships, western governments are not only behaving like violent mercenary thugs who will beat up upon any man whom some woman accuses of abuse - any woman - even a known serial liar - it actually expends considerable resources and employs a multiple of techniques to encourage women to do such things.

And the only reason that there are not many thousands more men who react to these things with murderous violence is because of the consequences that the state would inflict upon them.

In other words, it is a fear of the consequences - and not a question of 'justice' - that mostly prevents such things from happening.

In these areas, therefore, this is government wielding its power through the imposition of fear - not through the imposition of justice.

Putting all this another way: I doubt very much that I have ever come across a man or a woman who cares deeply about their children who would not think it justifiable to be violent towards anyone who was attempting to take them out of their lives.

they would certainly feel that such violence was justified.

They might not engage in any violence for fear of the consequences, but they would certainly feel that such violence was justified.

Goodness me. Most men would feel justified in acting violently against others in all sorts of circumstances that are much less serious than the one currently under discussion.

They would feel justified in using such violence, perhaps, if their house was being burgled, if someone kept insulting them, if the roughs next door kept smashing their car windows, if the man opposite kept flashing out of the window - or whatever. There are numerous relatively trivial circumstances in which most men would feel justified in using violence. And so, for example, when I hear men saying that violence would not be justified against someone who is actually taking away their own homes and children, I do not actually believe most of them. I think that they are fooling themselves.

And, in some sense, they are actually playing down the utter awfulness of what men often have to go through.

They are, for example, saying, "Oh no. Taking away my home and children would not be nearly as bad as someone actually smashing my car windows or burgling my house. In the first case, violence would never be justified, but in the latter two cases, it would be!"

Indeed, a strong argument can be made for the view that MRAs who say that violence is not justified when it comes to men protecting their access to what they hold most dear are diminishing very greatly in the eyes of others what these men actually stand to lose.

They are saying to the public, "Nah. For a man to lose his home and his children is not that important - not even as bad as being burgled. These Fathers Rights Groups are making a fuss about nothing."

Best wishes,

Harry

PS I notice that Paul McCartney looks set to have to fork out £50 million to Heather Mills. This is more money than 30 average people will earn in their lifetimes. This is a message to women that they will get the government's support to fleece any man out of his money simply by having a short-term relationship with him.

And this is the government saying that you can murder him ... 21 Female Murderers Pardoned.

most people recognise that people can snap

PPS I think that most people recognise that people can snap. They can become so deranged with anger or, perhaps, fear, that they lash out or they become obsessively dangerous in some way. And so, for example, women - and men - in the UK are often given fairly lenient sentences following serious crimes.

Thus, it is clearly the case that the government and the judges do have an understanding about the way in which people can end up doing all sorts of things that are very much not in their nature as a result of extreme 'provocation'. But what seems to be missing these days is an understanding about the way in which men can often end up doing things that are very much not in their nature as a result of extreme 'provocation'.

And I - along with many MRAs - do not believe that this 'understanding' about men is just 'missing'. The government and the judges know full well that men are being treated appallingly by 'the system'.

And yet they seem to do nothing about it.

In my view, they are too busy pandering to the feminist agenda, furthering their careers, cosying up to the politicians and/or simply trying to build their abuse empires.

And justice has got precious little to do with all this.

In other words, they are corrupt.

I received an email some years ago from a desperate man who said that he would rather have lost both his arms than lose his children. (He had three children, if my memory serves me correctly.)

"We are going to remove both your arms as a result of your wife's decision to leave you."

And I remember thinking at the time, that if this was indeed the case for many men - which I am sure it is - at least at the time of the events - then his situation was similar to a judge saying, "We are going to remove both your arms as a result of your wife's decision to leave you."

Think about it.

Because for many men, this is closely akin to what many judges are actually doing to them.

In other words, they are really hurting and destroying the lives of many men because of their corruption.

And - to repeat myself - when the state gets up to this sort of thing, it is a thousand times worse than when individuals do so.

Finally, I know that many state officials involved in these 'relationship' situations - police officers, judges, politicians, social workers, lawyers etc etc - are well aware of the huge injustices often being inflicted upon men by feminist-inspired policies and by many of those working in the 'abuse' industry. And yet they say and do nothing about it.

The reason for this is that these people are self-serving and corrupt. And they would rather see thousands of men being hurt very seriously every year and millions more being disaffected and alienated by what they see - with all the negative consequences to society that this brings about - than stand up and fight against what is going on.

They should be ashamed of themselves. 

Occasionally, I receive comments saying that my view that violence is often justified in many situations in which men find themselves as a result of the wholesale discrimination that they face in so many areas is a notion that they find unacceptable because it 'advocates violence'.

This is incorrect.

Firstly, to make the claim that something is 'justified' is not akin to 'advocating' it.

For example, if you are a woman who is being brutally raped then I would say that retaliating with violence is totally justified.

But I would not be 'advocating' violence in such a situation - lest it made matters worse.

In other words, saying that something is justified is not the same as advocating it.

Secondly, even the combined views that violence is 'justified' and that it would, in practice, 'solve the problem' is not the same as 'advocating' violence.

For example, there are many situations wherein people would agree that violence was 'justified' and would 'solve the problem', but, because 'violence would be against the law', they would not, actually, advocate it.

And so, to repeat myself: If violence is justifiable in order to defend yourself against rape, then it is even more justifiable in order to defend yourself against losing your home and children.

Finally, the point of the above piece is not to encourage violence but to demonstrate to men just how worthless and inconsequential they have allowed themselves to become by meekly succumbing to the indoctrination of man-hating feminism.

(Also see What A Piece Of Sht Is Man.)