In exchange for your manhood. Moral chaos in Central Park

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis Olson

New member
Here we go again, with some more of those old fashioned, outmoded, stereotypical, testosterone reeking, traditional Western social mores.

Oh - you mean you'd RATHER have your clothes ripped off and be physically assaulted by a gang in public, while numerous male individuals stood around being sensitive?

I see.
================================================

www.lewrockwell.com/peirce/peirce13.html

Moral Chaos in Central Park
by Michael Peirce

Like many former soldiers, I am very much against the "tough guy" mindset and the Hollywood stereotypes from which it stems. I despise the American addiction to violence as a form of entertainment. Equally, I am confused by our willingness to use violence for any end except self-defense.

I’m against all violence, and all war, except under very clearly defined circumstances. Yet it is time to speak out against the limp-wristed cowards who had a clear cut instance when employing violence was called for, and chose to stand idly by. It is not macho posturing to declare that men, all the men in the community, are obliged to defend the women and children of that community.

The ladies who were molested in Central Park recently may have contributed to their own predicament. New Yorkers don’t have much in the way of political choice, but could it be that they simply like it that way. I am well aware of the liberal mind set there, which makes "conservative" mean something very different when spoken in a Bronx accent as opposed to a Southern drawl. By liberal mindset I mean the attitude that says it’s OK to kill unborn babies but very bad to kill rapists and murderers. The ultimate sin, of course, is using a firearm for what it was made to do. Of course I’m talking about self defense and the defense of others, which are streng verboten in the Apple.

We don’t dare forget the cold reality of what happened in Central Park that day. There were no men of character in evidence, period, and some of those women, maybe most of them, had supported gun control as well as this political correctness vapor that insists upon sensitivity to minorities in lieu of the respect that comes from mutual acceptance of accountability. It’s called racism, folks, and the left has co-opted the language but the truth is the truth, and when you hold somebody less than accountable for their actions, you are not treating them as equals, you are treating them as children.

In America, there is only ever one option for employing violence against other human beings. You may use deadly force, when either you, or those under your protection, are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. How we define those under our protection is what we must consider now.

I wonder, would those ladies, given a choice, have preferred to have sensitive, caring men there, ethnic Puerto Ricans with all the macho pretensions (it was a Puerto Rican event – don’t blame me), or that mean ole hillbilly Mike? The first category are utterly useless when the chips are down, or any other time. The second category were too busy committing the crimes to help anyone, and that leaves me. At the risk of sounding pretentious, I will say quite openly that I would have gotten involved. Those who know me believe that. Why? Because as a gentlemen, any and every woman and child is under my protection! Since I’m a law-abiding man, I’d have been armed with a pocketknife instead of a firearm, and I’d have gone down. I’m required by scripture to obey Caesar so I must put my life on the line and go into combat virtually unarmed because of silly women and treasonous politicians. Mark well that denying American men free access to firearms is treason.

Why on earth do men allow themselves to be unarmed in a dangerous city like New York? It’s called the Sullivan Act and it keeps New Yorkers from responding to their responsibilities as citizens and as men. It keeps females from having the only last ditch protection that can really turn a situation around. It reinforces the statist absurdity that we must turn in all instances to the government for protection.

I use the word combat deliberately because that is exactly what would have transpired. It was only aggression that occurred, due to the cowardice and criminal negligence of the New York Police Department. Combat suggests that there is more than one side engaged – in New York on that shameful day, there was only one side, the side of contemptuous brutality and cowardice. I publicly name the perpetrators, the police, and the bystanders, as cowards and miscreants.

There are permutations to this, however.

Women who vote their emotions hinder my ability to protect them, and expose themselves to unnecessary danger. Equally, they expose my daughter to unnecessary danger and I resent that. Because you feel that things should be a certain way, does not mean that they are. Your feelings matter only in your own context, and indoors at that. Practical reality has a way of intervening in all our pipe dreams.

It only takes a few men of character and fortitude walking around to create a peaceful environment. These men must have a very specific type of courage, and it’s kind of thin on the ground these days. The courage to act. No time for an opinion poll, can’t count on your pals, you’ll probably get waxed, and guess what: it’s all up to you, just you. Men who can accept that responsibility are those who were originally the ones called citizens; men of property, who carried side arms and made the public weal their personal business. These are the folks who bequeathed us, with the help of God, our freedom. Men who will not accept that responsibility have no business voting and we darn sure have no business electing them to public office. Although it’s not about whether you carry weapons or not, it sure helps if such men are armed. Ultimately, freedom requires armed men. It’s quite that simple, and this simple truth has only been perverted recently.

We have identified three groups of American men who have no honor, and that’s the perpetrators, the bystanders, and those big tough drug warriors of New York’s finest. Shooting unarmed people while you’re covered with lots of backup doth not a brave man make, and the way it played out in the park out surprised no one. Since no one was surprised at the failure of NYPD, why was no one armed and ready to protect his own loved ones? This is pretty scary, for a nation that does not have men who value honor, is a nation that is doomed. A nation where men will not put their lives on the line to protect women may be too far gone to ever find redemption. It remains to quantify the rot.

The police officers, supervisors, and even the 911 operators who stained their garments in this disgraceful episode have been dismissed or reprimanded, and that’s a good thing. It also avoids a dark question that must be asked: how is it that so many people were all willing to shirk their duty at once? Did all the bad ones just happen to be on duty at one time? Probably not. There is something rotten at the very core of all this. It’s called government. Those police officers were under the impression that they answer to government and not the people who pay their salary. If they are right, celebrating the Fourth of July is now a cruel farce.

One excuse that’s been bandied about is that the police are afraid to act because minorities were involved and they’ve had such bad press over recent high profile shootings of civilians. That is totally unacceptable. The problem is this: the cops have been shooting people who have committed no crime. Why on earth wouldn’t they shoot or at least arrest, people who were assaulting women right in front of them?! Cops like those should have been publicly disgraced. The supervisors should have been handed a pistol with one bullet and sent to a small room to do what was once considered the honorable thing. Now days, they are more concerned with "spin" than honor.

The excuse doesn’t hold water anyway. The public was not wrong to be outraged when police shoot innocent people down in the street. The police were way wrong to act as if being chastised for wanton killings somehow penalizes them unfairly. So women were publicly abused while the cops pouted. This event ranks with the LA riots and Columbine as classic examples of why we should not count upon the police to protect us. Take their guns and their SWAT costumes, and send them on their way.

Let’s not forget the other excuse our fine friends in blue offered up: "We were outnumbered!" I say to you that courage trumps meanness: "One riot, one ranger!"

The next question to consider is what happened to the man on the street? Apparently all those tough hombres had run out of batteries to throw. So the New Yorkers are tough guys, eh? Apparently none of the tough guys were at that parade. Only the cowards.

We’ve heard about ethno-centric cultural views that differ from our own supposedly enlightened ones and must be viewed with tolerance. As if rap music was an old cultural tradition, and raping women was just something that happens with minorities, not to worry. To which I can only say in all sincerity, that is utter nonsense! The various Hispanic cultures that I’m familiar with hold women on a higher pedestal then Western Europeans used to do. It’s time to face the fact that if a large group of Hispanic men are acting that way – it’s crisis time. We are in the midst of a disaster created and fed by the media, the music industry, the government and the politically correct cultural Marxists.

Hear me, Puerto Ricans. Where is the public outcry against these criminals? Where were those who rushed to defend those women? You used to be men. What the hell happened?

Hear me, police officers! Not one of you, not a single one, can recall that day without shame. You used to be men. Now what are you?

Hear me, Western Europeans! You built a culture that was the envy of all others. Now you won’t lift your hand to help a female who is under attack? You used to be men. What did you receive in exchange for your manhood?

Hear me, women! You wanted the vote so badly and got it. You’ve used it to vote your feelings instead of your intellect. You think you’re free because a corrupt culture has given you an imagined "right" to murder your unborn children, and you wonder that men no longer respect you enough to put their lives on the line for you. The next time the Titanic goes down, you better be ready for a swim because in America now it’s "Women and children last!" Do you really like it this way?

Hear me, government stooges! You’ve taken our freedom and given us chaos. The day of judgment is at hand. Next time it will be your daughter and nobody will be there to help. You will weep and wail and gnash your teeth, because you will know whose fault it was, and perhaps for the first time in your miserable life, you will feel the shame of your misdeeds.

And, finally, to all you gangsta tough guys. Don’t try that stuff in my neighborhood. It would be your last mistake.

July 6, 2000

Mr. Peirce fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian Smith side, of course).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I’m required by scripture to obey Caesar so I must put my life on the line and go into combat virtually unarmed because of silly women and treasonous politicians. Mark well that denying American men free access to firearms is treason. [/quote]

Hold it right there, bubba. Women aren't the only ones who vote silly and treasonous laws into existence, and men aren't the only ones with the right to bear arms.

It isn't necessary to be a sexist in order to believe that it is the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak. If this Neanderthal had limited himself to making that point, I'd be cheering him on.

pax

"If men can run the world, why can't they stop wearing neckties? How intelligent is it to start the day by tying a little noose around your neck?" -- Linda Ellerbee
 
pax, are you saying that because of that one part of his statement, all of the statement is then incorrect?

Are you saying that if you disagree with any one part of a statement, you would disagree with all of it?

Regards, Art
 
I don't think that's what she meant at all, Art. I think she'd have stated it that way directly if that's what she wanted to say. She stated very clearly that she disagreed with the claim that gun control is the result of female votes alone, and I think she's right to do so. The last thing we need is to cast about for one group to blame for gun control.

You and I don't like having a government agency tell us we're weak and foolish or that they have to protect us (especially from ourselves.) He said the same thing about women, so we can't blame them for hating it as much as we do.
 
I think he makes a great point. It illustrates social evolution at its finest. Now that we are all equal, nobody is responsible for anything.


------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
Nope, I'm saying that I'm not cheering him on ... merely giving him a look like this one: :rolleyes:

If he'd limited himself to saying that it is the moral responsibility of the strong to protect the weak, the whole article would have been much stronger.

The writer's main point is that cowardice is bad and protecting the weak is good. This by itself is offensive enough in today's society. He did not need to add egregarious insult. Let the reader get fired up and react to the important point, not put off by offensive gibberish.

Why blame women for laws that both genders have voted into effect? Why state that women (and only women) vote their feelings instead of their intellect?

Why imply that only men would wish to protect their loved ones and that only men are able to do so? Isn't a handgun a dam' good equalizer?

Hope that clarifies a bit.

pax

"The essence of wrong is injustice. To help another by wrong is to do injustice to somebody else." -- George MacDonald
 
Whooh boy! The feminazis would have a field day with this article, and a lynch-mob out to get Mr. Pierce!

I, like pax, don't like the fact that he blamed gun-control laws on women voters, or that men were the only ones w/ RKBA either. While I think that for the most part women would tend to vote w/ their emotions more than a man, there are some very rational women out there, and some very emotional men as well!

Other than the sexist comments, it's a great and very stirring commentary.

------------------
---------------
"Pray as if your life depends on God, Prepare as if it all depends on you..." -Texas Preacher

Liberty or death, what we so proudly hail... DON'T TREAD ON ME!!-Metallica

"Many's the men who've battled foe
many the number slain,
many the lads have fallen though
Scotland shall rise again."
 
Okay. I did not read into it that he really believes that only women and politicians voted for gun control.

I think that what his intent may well have been was that there is a lot of irony in two facts: 1. Women are the typical targets in this sort of evil. 2. A large number of women are very vocal in favor of disarmament laws. After all, did we not recently have the MMM?

Obviously Mr. Pierce--or any of us--have no way of knowing the "gun-views" of any of the victims. Given the political patterns of New York City, however, I would not be surprised to learn that some of the victims were supportive of such things as the Sullivan Law. Odds and statistics, is all. It would hold true for many of the "men" around, but they weren't attacked...

Halfway teasing, really, pax; I think you over-reacted to a rather small point in an otherwise good article. Also remember that if he was in combat in Rhodesia, he's almost an Old Fart--and from the different culture that was Rhodesia; or the U.S. of my own growing-up, for that matter.

No le hace,

Art
 
It's partly because of crap like this that I choose to live in north Idaho.

No gangs molesting women - in fact, no gangs at all. And if some gangbangers thought it would be cool to come here and try some Central Park-type "recreation," they'd go back to L.A., Tucson, NYC or whatever hole they used to call home, in boxes.

The other day (4th of July, to be exact), some guy said to me, "Living here is like sitting in the high, cheap seats and watching the rest of the country beat itself up."

There's still lots of places where moral fiber and moral outrage can be found.
 
I doubt Mr. Pierce was being in any way sexist in his remarks. Having read many of his articles my opinion is that he's what would be referred to as an "old-fashioned Southern gentleman." That mindset includes the notion that the sexes aren't equal - women are better than men. But part of the price we men pay for their civilizing company is their protection. As a Christian, Mr. Pierce views this (as do I) as a moral absolute. Unfortunatey, in today's social climate, chivalry might not be dead, but it's gasping for air.

Reminds me of a story I heard some time ago:
A man was going through a door and stopped, held the door for a woman, and let her proceed ahead of him with an "after you" sort of gesture. Indignantly she said, "You don't have to hold the door for me because I'm a lady!" To which he pleasantly responded, "I'm not ma'am. I'm doing it becasue I'm a gentleman." :D

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
Gender really doesn't enter into it. Your fellow citizen is being attacked and victimized. In the interest of civilized society, you should come to their aid. Male, female, Black, White, Christian, Muslim, Republican, Democrat, doesn't matter. No one deserves to suffer the crap that went on in Central Park.
 
True.

------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
 
Ms. Magazine forum, of all places, had some comments about "damn men not defending the women". IMO, the "sexist" part of this article was a response to such comments.

FWIW, chivalry isn't dead around here. It is most effective when the gestures are not strictly necessary...a woman can open her own door BUT the attention is polite. Goes the other way, too. Moreover, most of my friends are married to people who can fend for themselves (men or women). Self-reliant people tend to band together...kinda ironic. I, personally, look for a strong partner, not for a co-dependent.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>FWIW, chivalry isn't dead around here. It is most effective when the gestures are not strictly necessary...a woman can open her own door BUT the attention is polite.[/quote]

Chivalry is good and it will be a sad day when it finally breathes its last in this country. My beliefs:

A gentleman holds the door for a lady because that is what a gentleman does. It's polite. He doesn't hold the door because he assumes that she is too weak or foolish to know how to open it for herself. That wouldn't be at all polite.

The only proper response to a door being held open is stepping through it with a smile and a murmured 'thank you.' Anything else is rude.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Goes the other way, too. Moreover, most of my friends are married to people who can fend for themselves (men or women). Self-reliant people tend to band together...kinda ironic. I, personally, look for a strong partner, not for a co-dependent.[/quote]

There you go.

David Scott had it right; gender doesn't enter into this one. No one deserves to put up with the crud that went on that day. Those who were present had a duty to stop the goings-on, a duty they failed miserably.

The author claimed that he would have had to "put [his] life on the line and go into combat virtually unarmed because of silly women and treasonous politicians." That women clamored for the right to vote and then voted their emotions instead of their intellect. That it takes armed men (by his context he meant "males" and not simply "people") to keep the peace and preserve our freedoms.

Is it silly of me to resent this man who holds open the door for me with a sneer on his face? When he's clearly holding the door open only because he regards me as too weak and foolish to open it myself?

Thank you, no. The gesture is appreciated but the gratuitous insult is not.

pax, pax

nb: I'm not irritated with anyone on the thread; merely with the insulting article. No offense given and I hope none taken.


[This message has been edited by pax (edited July 10, 2000).]
 
No offense taken. As I mentioned, I may well agree with some parts of the article without endorsing the reasoning that got him to that conclusion.

Oleg
 
Well being an "old fart" I hold doors open for ladies, and all of the other "old fashioned" gestures of politeness, but the comment about the lady (?) cussing a man out for opening a door brought back a memory.
I was going to a store and opened and held the door for a "lady". Rather than go through the door, this "lady" proceeded to swear and curse me out like I'd never heard before. I worked for a while on San Francisco's waterfront, and believe me those stevedores can cuss up one heck of a blue streak, but this little woman had them beat.
My answer to her was, "Excuse me. I thought I was holding the door for a lady. I see I was mistaken." That really set her off, not that I much cared at that point. She was no lady.
Mr. Peirce made some good points. Like him, I believe it would be my duty to try and help those women out, but at 62, I would probably end up in NYC's morgue. Somehow though, I think a few of them would've gone with me.
I read something a few years ago on the Sullivan law. Seems like it was passed so that only the members of a certian political party could get permits, and any of the opposition could not. Strange thing happened years later. Seems like Mr. Sullivan fell asleep on some railroad tracks, and a train just happened to run over him. HMMMM! Sounds like justice to me. I think that the Sullivan law encompasses the whole state of new York, and not just it's rectal oriface, NYC. Sorry Sipowitz.
Paul B.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The only proper response to a door being held open is stepping through it with a smile and a murmured 'thank you.' Anything else is rude.[/quote]
agreed.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>My answer to her was, "Excuse me. I thought I was holding the door for a lady. I see I was mistaken." [/quote]
BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!

I once read a complaint from a woman in her 50's about men holding the door for women, etc. Personally, I think she's an idiot. I'm 20 years younger and quite capable of opening a door for myself, but I very much appreciate when a man holds the door for me. It's a very nice consideration. Stupid (and incredibly rude) women such as the one Paul encountered give all self-sufficient women a bad name.
I fully intend to teach my son to hold doors for ladies, but unfortunately, I will have to prepare him for the probability of this scenario. I'll just tell him there are some incredibly rude people in the world and there's nothing he can do about it. He should still hold the door again next time. What would he rather suffer...harsh words from a stranger or a whack upside the head from his (stronger-than-she-looks)mother? :D
 
Folks,

I'm about to get into hot water here, but this is an issue that sets me off every time I hear about it.

As sad as this is about to sound, I say to hell with them. If I was living in NYC and saw that happen, I'd leave and call the police from a pay phone and that would be the end of it. I wouldn't feel guilty, or sorry that I did not help. The folks who live there put themselves into that position, not just easing their "access" to crime, but also making it easier for bystanders to walk away. Don't blame the men who stood around and did nothing to help, that time in our history has past. Getting involved now has the potental to send you to the emergency room and the least, and bankrupt you and send you to jail at the most. Tell me exactly, how is that helping the folks you really need to help, your family? If you're in the hosptial, jail, bankruptcy, or the morgue, for helping folks who can't/won't help themselves, how does this help your family?

I live in a carry state and I still wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone. I have no problem walking away from someone bleeding on the street after a fight. I'll walk to a pay phone and call the cops, but that will be the last of it for me. I jumped through some pretty serious hoops to get a laminated card giving me permission to do something that I think is a fundamental right...defend myself. And that's exactly what that card lets me do. Defend myself, no one else. If personal saftey is an issue with someone else, I see absolutely no reason for anyone else to not do the same. If someone on the street expects someone else to save them as they're being stabbed, raped, or shot to death, those grass eaters better get on their knees and pray to whatever they believe in that I'm not the one coming around the corner.

Okay, so the folks in the Peoples Republic of NYC can't get a permit to carry a pistol. THEN WHY ON NATURES GREEN PLANET ARE YOU STILL LIVING THERE!! It's as obvious as a frying pan in the face that NO ONE in authority cares about your personal saftey because you will be jailed if you try. It makes me sick to my stomach to see grass eaters end up in an emergency room then cry that no one helped them. Try helping yourself for a change instead of expecting other to do it for you. Try taking responsiblity for your own saftey instead of expecting others to do it for you.

Mr. Peirce, call me what you want, but I'll tell you exactly what I am. I am a product of what this nation has become. And because of that, I will rely on no one but myself and expect no one to help me. Then I'll call the police to do the job they do best...clean up the mess and write the report.

Please forgive any spelling mistakes.

EAF
 
Perhaps NYC is due to receive another Bernard Getz. I don't say this lightly, but believe it is likely to occur again.

Where the hell is the N.O.W. crowd, the women
's rights coalition? Where the hell is Hillary after this occured in her favorite city? Nowhere to be found.
Could that be because uncle Bill released the PR prisoners not so long ago, and couldn't politically go down down that road?

Considering how left NYC leans, it would be fair to say that this was an acceptable circumstance. Or, in business terms, acceptable losses, for the sake of moving forward.
Question is, where is NYC heading.

It's very reasonable to take the posture that you can't have a policeman on every corner of NYC, or any city, for that matter. Do you then place a camera on every intersection now, in an effort to corner crime, but don't have the resources to hire actual bodies to deter crime?
Is this the best we can do to prevent the occurence from happening again?
No, in fact, it's assurance that it will occur again, but next time perhaps you'll document it on tape...

Will that get you the mass hysteria seen with the Rodney King incident? How about the Reginald Denny counter-action by some of his peers?

I seriously beleive that every woman in NYC, and surrounding burroughs, should be carrying a hatpin or two. And if necessary, use it to pin the dunce cap on the idiot that dares to try assault them. Should be fairly easy to identify the perp walking along the street, minding his own business.
Let's see, if these bozo's had tried that then, they'd look like one of those little vodoo hex dolls, with the pins sticking out of em, sorta like a porcupine.
Even more disturbing to the male ego, is the mental image of a Johnsonville Brat on a skewer. :o

Point is, :) they'd most likely have dropped that BS long time before it got out of hand.
Perhaps I overestimate the Latino machismo here, but it seems to me that that was the driving factor in their rape and plunder attack there.

Best Regards,
Don



------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
-----------------
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.

John F. Kennedy
 
Mr. Peirce is sexist. That is clear in his comments. He believes men are better at fighting/combat simply because of their gender. He expects women to RELY on men for protection. "It only takes a few men of character and fortitude walking around to create a peaceful environment. These men must have a very specific type of courage, and it’s kind of thin on the ground these days. The courage to act. No time for an opinion poll, can’t count on your pals, you’ll probably get waxed, and guess what: it’s all up to you, just you. Men who can accept that responsibility are those who were originally the ones called citizens; men of property, who carried side arms and made the public weal their personal business. These are the folks who bequeathed us, with the help of God, our freedom. Men who will not accept that responsibility have no business voting and we darn sure have no business electing them to public office. Although it’s not about whether you carry weapons or not, it sure helps if such men are armed. Ultimately, freedom requires armed men. It’s quite that simple, and this simple truth has only been perverted recently."
As to the question of mindset or courage as he calls it I agree. I just don't think gender has any bearing on the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top