While reading about the travails of the Malheur Four, I came across a comment linking to an interview with anti-semitic ISIS sympathizer David Fry in which he reveals the real reason why he's unwilling to surrender:
At around the five-minute mark, Fry lets drop that he's terrified of being "sodomized by Bubba" if he is sent to prison. Never mind the fact that he's spent the past few weeks with individuals who fit the common perception of 'Bubba', Fry's statement offers a glimpse into the ammosexual mindset... at its root is the fear of victimization at the hands of a stronger individual. Much of the fear is rooted in projection- these people are violent people themselves, with no qualms about victimizing others. The same fear underlies American racism, the notion that African-Americans would love nothing better than to turn the tables on the whites who enslaved them and brutalized them under the Jim Crow apartheid system. Without his gun, Fry is small fry, and he'll be eaten alive by a bigger fish if thrown in the tank.
The very fact of Fry's presence at Malheur is worthy of a cautionary afterschool special- the tale of a boy being bullied by white classmates for his half-Japanese ancestry who grows up to throw his lot in with white supremacists. It's telling that he was odd man out in the Bundy Bunch until LaVoy Finicum, whose 'book' Fry helped to get published, vouched for his bundy fides though Fry was apparently never truly accepted by the core of the group. Finicum's relationship with Fry paradoxically humanizes LaVoy and makes him more monstrous... it's touching that he took this beat-down misfit under his wing, but he exploited him to serve a cause that he would derive no benefit from. At best, Finicum's 'mentoring' of Fry comes across like Lance Murdock's bad advice to Bart Simpson, seen in a less charitable light, it's a doomsday cult leader's exhortation to a follower to self-immolate.
Fry probably doesn't stand a chance if he continues his present course of action. If he doesn't achieve his 'suicide by cop', he'll probably be shanked in prison for being a snitch- he's the guy, after all, most responsible for the continuous video feed that provided the feds with tons of evidence. Plus, he's not a member of the Bundy inner circle... he's not family, he's a non-white interloper from back East who was never trusted from the get-go. If Fry had any sense at all, he'd surrender and turn state's evidence. He doesn't seem to have a lick of sense, though, and America's own Humongous seems to be doing his level best to get him killed. I'd feel sorry for the guy, he's a pathetic figure, but his self-loathing and fear led him to embrace hate, which led him to consort with a bunch of bad, dangerous people, and he poses a danger to others. There still may be time for him to save his ass, but his naivete and stubbornness will probably land Fry in the fire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
it's touching that he took this beat-down misfit under his wing, but he exploited him to serve a cause that he would derive no benefit from
The cynic in me is reminded of LaVoy's taking in foster children for the money & their free labor.
To be honest, Mr. Bastard, I think you're applying lefty stereotypes to simplify a particular set of ideological indoctrination. "Ammosexual" is a cute construct, but it's well below your intelligence and analytic capacity.
The analogue here is Jihadis - a group of malleable people indoctrinated to a a cause and walking on the edge of dying for it. It's everything we honor in commitment to one's cause, except we mock the cause. And yeah - the cause is imaginary - but that doesn't make it's true believers into some kind of gun worshiping idiots. You confront a complex political challenge with stupid catch phrases. By your apparent definition, I'M an 'ammosexual'. And I'd tell you, straight up, what's your problem you have to learn martial arts - who you trying to kill? Why are you so afraid? Do you have a tiny penis?
See how this can go?
Look, I'm not defending these guys - but I'm saying we can be a little more perceptive about what's happening. Remember when that teevee star got run out of town for pointing out that the 9/11 attackers had one helluva lot of courage to carry out their attack? They did. Soldiers fight - they are ALWAYS manipulated, and used, and they die for reasons they never understand.
But just pissing on their corpses is what SE Cupp does - you really wanna be part of that crowd?
The use of peaceful civil disobedience to address injustice requires commitment and sacrifice, as MLK Jnr explained in his famous Letter from Please-don't-send-me-to-Birmingham-Jail.
I'd feel sorry for the guy, he's a pathetic figure, but his self-loathing and fear led him to embrace hate
"Fear and self-loathing in the high desert, a savage journey to the heart of the ammosexual's nightmare"
Somebody'd publish it.
Also, too: "ammosexual" is a wonderful construct, and if it bothers somebody, perhaps that somebody may want to consider more what that says about just how important their fetish is to them, than it does about the users of the term.
Why is an interest in guns a 'fetish' while an interest in killing people barehanded is somehow something different?
I dunno, but if I was going to ruminate in deep concern about violent fetishes, it might very well be about these people who walk among us who know dozens of ways to kill us instantly with just their hands. What do you suppose is the motivation for that kind of desire for physical dominance?
The cynic in me is reminded of LaVoy's taking in foster children for the money & their free labor.
Bingo! He would've had Fry digging post holes if he hadn't been shot.
To be honest, Mr. Bastard, I think you're applying lefty stereotypes to simplify a particular set of ideological indoctrination. "Ammosexual" is a cute construct, but it's well below your intelligence and analytic capacity.
In this case, Fry has clearly expressed an explicitly sexual fear- if he is disarmed, then he'll be a victim of a sexual crime at the hands of a stronger, more dominant individual. Using a sexual term to describe his fear is the best way to convey his pathology.
The analogue here is Jihadis - a group of malleable people indoctrinated to a a cause and walking on the edge of dying for it. It's everything we honor in commitment to one's cause, except we mock the cause. And yeah - the cause is imaginary - but that doesn't make it's true believers into some kind of gun worshiping idiots. You confront a complex political challenge with stupid catch phrases.
By holding them up for ridicule, you reduce their appeal among fence-sitters. Who the hell would want to join a revolution led by these four knuckleheads freezing and scared half-to-death in a bird refuge? There's no glamour to these idiots, nobody will be wearing a red T-shirt with LaVoy Finicum's face on it decades after his death.
By your apparent definition, I'M an 'ammosexual'. And I'd tell you, straight up, what's your problem you have to learn martial arts - who you trying to kill? Why are you so afraid? Do you have a tiny penis?
Are you parading around Stop-and-Shop with an AR-15, trying to get rise out of soccer moms in the dairy section? There are plenty of people who use guns recreationally, I have done it myself. The ammosexuals are the ones who can't be without their shooting irons for fear of ridicule and domination by others... without that fear, based on projection, one isn't an ammosexual. Regarding my martial arts involvement, it's a sport for me- it's the physical equivalent of a chess match, two competitors matching strength, cunning, balance, knowledge, and a little bit of luck against each other... and after the fight, which is very real, we get up unharmed. There's a social aspect too, we are all friends, and we yuk it up as much as we fight. As far as killing someone, that would take a lot of effort, effort on an intimate level, involving quite a bit of risk of injury or death oneself. That would be the case if one tried to kill someone else- most of what we do involves immobilizing an opponent, really dangerous techniques are shunned because one can't play anymore if one hurts one's opponent. All bets would be off if one threw someone else on the street, but that's the sort of thing that is easier to pull off on someone actively attacking you.
Look, I'm not defending these guys - but I'm saying we can be a little more perceptive about what's happening. Remember when that teevee star got run out of town for pointing out that the 9/11 attackers had one helluva lot of courage to carry out their attack? They did. Soldiers fight - they are ALWAYS manipulated, and used, and they die for reasons they never understand.
The real problem here is that the mainstream media is overly sympathetic to these idiots, largely because they're white. The real manipulation here is being used on the general public, to whom these guys are characterized as protesters with legitimate grievances, instead of a bunch of cheats and frauds trying to steal the public's property.
But just pissing on their corpses is what SE Cupp does - you really wanna be part of that crowd?
So far, there's only one corpse, a guy who died a stupid, needless death, probably because he was living his cowboy fantasy of shooting it out with Johnny Law. I hope the four idiots in the MNWR give up and testify against the ringleaders who duped them. LaVoy should be ridiculed because there is a fringe that's already trying to make him into a martyr and a 'legend', contrary to the video evidence revealing his death. Pointing out his moronic end also makes insurrection less appetizing to wannabe gunfighters.
The use of peaceful civil disobedience to address injustice requires commitment and sacrifice, as MLK Jnr explained in his famous Letter from Please-don't-send-me-to-Birmingham-Jail.
It wasn't a Letter from a Birmingham Denny's...
The issue of brutality in prison (and overincarceration of Americans) is a real problem.
And so are overly harsh mandatory sentencing guidelines.
The thing is these problems have been predominantly inflicted on black Americans for decades. And the Bundy types, as well as the politicians who pander to them, not only don't give a hairy rat's ass about that, they're mostly all for it.
That's why I have a problem with the likes of Conor Feiedersdorf saying we should be on the same side.
Definitely, and Cliven pretty much gave the game away when he decided to tell the world about 'the Negro'. These guys really don't care about anyone outside of their inner circle, even those four idiots still at Malheur.
"Fear and self-loathing in the high desert, a savage journey to the heart of the ammosexual's nightmare"
Somebody'd publish it.
Also, too: "ammosexual" is a wonderful construct, and if it bothers somebody, perhaps that somebody may want to consider more what that says about just how important their fetish is to them, than it does about the users of the term.
Somebody get Chuck Tingle on the line.
Why is an interest in guns a 'fetish' while an interest in killing people barehanded is somehow something different?
It's really difficult to kill someone barehanded, and it exposes the killer to a great degree of risk. Choke holds are legal in our sport, and it takes a lot of effort to choke an opponent unless you catch them completely off balance.
Nobody I know is interested in killing anyone, either- people who expressed such an interest would be weeded out of any dojo I've ever been in. We take the moral component of what we do seriously, and there's an important reason- if you hurt your opponent, there goes the workout. We want each other well and full of fight. Regarding public displays of badassery, most of us just get a chuckle out of dudebros wearing 'TAPOUT' shirts- they are just kinda silly. The real fighters don't stand out unless you look at their ears. Two of the toughest guys I know look like middle-aged librarian types. One of them had a drunk guy harass him in a bar, and he got him in a wristlock and convinced the guy that it wasn't smart to mess with mild-mannered, bespectacled chaps because they might be Olymic medal-winning fighters. The guy was uninjured, but embarrassed as hell. If he had been shot, that wouldn't have been the result.
I dunno, but if I was going to ruminate in deep concern about violent fetishes, it might very well be about these people who walk among us who know dozens of ways to kill us instantly with just their hands. What do you suppose is the motivation for that kind of desire for physical dominance?
There's a lot of misconceptions about the martial arts, especially Eastern ones. There really aren't dozens of ways to kill someone instantly with just one's hands. The converse of that is that a lucky punch could catch even a trained fighter off guard, causing them to fall, or a brain injury. The human body is pretty tough, it usually takes a lot of punishment, but there's always a chance of a mishap.
The whole notion of a 'dim mak death touch' is rooted in woo like chi and acupuncture points. Sure there are nerve spots- we even learn how to press one on the jawline under the ear in order to cause an opponent to expose their neck to a choke- but the idea of Pai Mei causing your heart to explode with a series of touches is a fantasy.
My standard joke is that if anyone attacked you on the subway, the best way to fight them would be to bludgeon them with your heavy, heavy gi.
If you really wanted to kill someone, you'd be better off picking up a rock than using your 'technique'.
Why is an interest in guns a 'fetish' while an interest in killing people barehanded is somehow something different?
Let me put it this way: Liking this is fine, but...
You can like "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" -- no big deal. Just keep in mind that at some unspecified point of obsession with it you become a Brony.
You can like guns, but at some unspecified point of obsession with guns you become an ammosexual.
And I will point and laugh at both of you.
Get it?
Post a Comment