Scar

I didn't go looking for a fight story. I was minding my own business when the fight story came my way. Just a few days ago I wrote a seemingly opaque comment at Covenent Zone in which I argued that it is better to fight and suffer the consequences than to suffer from the pangs of cowardice forever. And today, sure enough, there is a story about the very sort of thing I wrote about, except that it's not exactly what I meant at all.

"Why we fight" Adam McDowell, National Post Published: Monday, January 14, 2008

For John Wayne - or at least John Wayne's character in 1976's The Shootist - the rules were simple. "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on," he said. "I don't do these things to others, and I require the same from them."

[....]

Why should you put up with being pushed around or insulted, or allow this to happen to those who can't defend themselves? Nowadays we are told violence never solved anything. This is nonsense. We may have our reasons for choosing not to hit someone: ethics, fear of arrest, a hand modelling contract, cowardice.

But it is a lie to suggest that the employment of gentlemanly fisticuffs can't help when dealing with the hooligans, ruffians and rogues who infect our streets. Herewith are five reasons you should at least consider putting up your dukes the next time a fellow is asking for it.

1. Ungentlemanly behaviour must be corrected

What are you supposed to do when a guy spits on you?

Jericho is the name of the obnoxious hippie Chris Jones dragged out of a quiet neighbourhood pub and beat up last year. "These f---ing guys were being so loud," he explains over the phone from his home in Ottawa. Jones asked the Biblically named patron and his friends to quiet down; when Jericho "loosed a throat pony" on Jones's face, Jones pulled him outside by the beard and punched him out.

"I definitely think spitting in someone's face is provocation," Jones says.

Jones happens to be a staff writer for Esquire magazine. He recounted his bar bout in the November issue in a piece called "Why I Started Punching Jerks Again" (retitled "In Defense of the Fistfight" for the online edition).

"Believe it or not, there was a rational process leading to this point," he says. "The fact is, more and more people are acting, like I say in the story, like they're above being edited. No one has ever challenged them."

Nowadays, Jones reluctantly provides that challenge if provoked. "The fact is, I'm not a violent person. I would rather there not be any fights. But that would necessitate that there not be any a--holes."

2. Fighting could make you a real-life Tyler Durden

The moral of Jones's story - that, like it or not, standing up to the Jerichos of this world means being willing to punch them [in the] face - resonated with readers. He says he's had more feedback for that one short piece than for any other he's written, overwhelmingly from men. Like the narrator of Fight Club (a 1996 novel and 1999 film), fighting made Jones the subject of unexpected admiration.

[....]

3. Fighting could make you a star on YouTube

If men don't have the opportunity to get into a real-life fist fight, they'll watch one.

"I really don't know why this video got so big. If you really think about it, it's just a fight on a bus," says Anthony Bloch of Thornhill, Ont., whose camera captured the video that became the online hit "Drunk Bus Fight on the Vomit Comet."

The video depicts a rider fighting off three other young men on a late-night bus in Toronto. Bloch had a good view from his seat when the fight went down last fall. "The guy who's standing on top, I think these guys said something to his girlfriend," he says. "He was definitely protecting his girlfriend. He was holding her in place in that little corner while he was fighting off all these people."

While violence is everywhere in the media, examples of real-life chivalry are rare. Grainy footage of a bus fight is irresistible viewing to men, especially when the hero wins a three-against-one donnybrook in defence of his lady's honour. Drunk Bus Fight's hit count ballooned to nearly 60,000 after it appeared on the local TV news.

4. Knocking a guy out is easier than you think

"The great myth of the bar fight is that it's 20 minutes long, if you watch these movie fights. The fact is that if you catch someone squarely in the face, the fight's over," says Jones, who is five-foot-10 and has a little boxing training. "There shouldn't be a lot of windup. It should be quick."

[....]

5. Fighting actually feels good

The old, non-violent Jones failed to intervene one day when a pair of young men slapped a beer out of a homeless man's hand. The incident ate at him for years. "I was carrying these burdens from fights I didn't fight far longer than any bruises would have taken to heal," Jones says. Punching the grin off Jericho's face made him feel much better.

Exchanging blows can make you feel like a million bucks even if you get hurt. "The feeling of the fight - you never really feel more alive," says Hominick, though he still recommends keeping a cool head.

When it comes to dealing with people with a bully mentality, Jones says most of the time you won't even need to throw a punch. Bullies rely on intimidation; when they see you're willing to fight, they typically back down.

"What's amazing is how often it doesn't actually get to a fight," he says. "You still get the good feeling about standing up for yourself or for someone else." http://www.nationalpost.com/life/story.html?id=237409

My comment at covenant Zone is about Islam and Left Dhimmi Fascism. I used some local examples to make a broader point: that when America is attacked, we must rely on our government and its legitimate armed forces to do our violence for us in a rational and laawful way; but that if that fails us, then we must act on our own, outside the bounds of our lands, and then, if and when captured, we must willingly submit to the punishment that comes of our actions.

If, as above, a foreign nation spits on us, we should punch that nation in the face and ensure no other nation treats us that way again. Harsh? Violent? Disproportionate? Of course it is, and it must be so. It is the nature of Nature that the weak are beaten for no other reason than that they are weak. It is the nature of our Modernity that we do not beat others simply because we can; we are rational and moving ever further toward justice in our laws. But we have missed a point of interest: that we must not be rational to the extent that we are irrational. A nation hurts us? We must stomp it and its innocent civilians into the bloody ground to ensure no other nation does the same to us again or to any other nation. It is rational, it is just, and it is beyond me why there is widening rationalizations for the unjust. America and the West as pitiful weaklings brings out disgust and hatred in many non-Modern people. We either to learn to deal with them as they are rather than as how we think they are or how we think they should be, or we die or become enslaved from sheer ugly cowardice.

But the fact is that men are men and men can only put up with so much shit before nothing else matters but being a full-blown man. Then all the years of schooling and office-politicking and being Mr Nice-guy trying to get laid come to a full stop. Then comes out the man and the fight gets nasty.

Jihadi-bent Moslems? Left Dhimmi Fascists? Our Sensitive New Age CIA? Roll over, boys. Men are coming to town soon enough.

Warren Kinsella: Useful Idiot. (Finally.)

If you know what we do here and why we do it, then the following piece will have you howling with laughter, maybe have you leaning out the window cheering.

It's easy enough to find idiots on the Left, but it's not everyday that one finds one who is actually useful. So you will find this one, Warren Kinsella, delightful in his role as idiot who does the world some good. I'm still laughing.

Briefly, last evening I found a piece in the National Post newspaper in Canada by Warren Kinsella. It argues for censorship to protect the feelings of Muslims, perhaps among others. Kinsella argues against hate-speech, wanting censorship to stop it or to prosecute it's authors. He writes: "Firstly, let me say that I am a censor. I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression. ... I believe we are entitled as society to place reasonable limits on the expression of actual hatred towards religious faiths. I believe that words and images that expose the tenets of a person's faith to hatred should be condemned and, where appropriate, punished. Expressing hatred about someone else's spiritual beliefs is not free speech. It is hatred, and it is almost always calculated to cause pain and hurt....." I read it, found it mildly repulsive, and really didn't give it any more thought till this evening when I encountered this wonderful piece of useful idiocy from the censor himself. I could not have paid for such a fool to perform like this. Even though this man is apparently some kind of party hack for a federal government clique, i.e. the Liberal Party, and even though such types are, as I understand it, for sale, I don't think anyone in the nation here could afford to pay a man to do what Kinsella did for free. I am laughing.

Warren Kinsella: And people wonder why I don't have comments on my own blog

Posted: January 14, 2008, 8:38 PM by WKinsella

Wonder no more.

Here's what some cowardly creep wrote in response to a post I made on this site earlier today . I wish there was some way to determine the real name of the person spewing this brand of hate:

by canadian infidel Jan 14 2008 3:28 PM

"the cartoons that depict Islam's prophet as a murderer" while they may upset muslims are in fact a true representation of him. According to the koran the prophet did rape, kill, pillage innocents and promoted pedophilia by marrying a six year old. In our society that kind of behaviour, and the culture that holds it dear SHOULD be ridiculed for the barbaric cult that it is.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/15/154204.aspx

Those of us who have studied Islam can only read Kinsella and burst out laughing. Here is a man who wants to prosecute people for writing the truth about Islam, and he doesn't know what the truth is because he's never looked into Islam at all. Not a bit. He obviously, the evidence proving it in his statements above, doesn't know a thing about Islam and yet wants to shut up and perhaps jail those of us who do know and who write with genuine authority on this subject. That's the part I shrug off, he being an idiot. It's the useful part that grabs my attention today. This is one useful idiot, this Kinsella.

He not only makes a fool of himself in a national paper, he not only gives a large readership to Canadian Infidel's display of some very basic facts about Mohammed and the Sunna, he goes further and shows us all what the mind of a censor is like and what we can expect from the Leftists who vie for political control of the nation here and nations abroad.

According to Kinsella, if you write the truth about Islam you are a cowardly creep spewing hatred. Never mind that Kinsella doesn't have the first clue about Islam. Never mind that Canadian Infidel knows and writes about Islam to a degree that Kinsella, party hack and newspaper opinionator cannot begin to match. What is both vividly explanatory and revelatory and what is hilarious too is that we can see the silly little censor shrieking for prosecution of one who knows the truth based on facts gathered by effort. We see the censor spewing hatred against a man who actually knows the facts, and we see that the facts really don't enter into the mind of the censor, it being occlude by ideology and by sheer hubris. This political hack, Kinsella, wants to put people in jail because, and only because, they disagree with him. It not that the other person is wrong, because in the case of Canadian Infidel, the latter is right on the facts; Kinsella's only reason for wanting to do whatever thing he wants to do to C.I. is that Kinsella doesn't like people who disagree with him and his idiot opinions. Reality and facts make no difference here. Kinsella is after C.I. for disagreeing with him, and that's all. There is no other reason.

If Kinsella's gang of idiots get into political power again in this country I'm outta here. That would be due to the leadership of this nation being in the hands of idiots who are lethally stupid and bigoted. Sure, I'd like to spend time in jail with Ezra Levant, tried for reprinting the Danish Cartoons in Alberta, Canada, but really, if Canadians vote for idiots like this Kinsella, there's not much point in hanging around even for the good company of Levant. Meanwhile, it's a great laugh because Kinsella has put up Canadian Infidel's comments in a large circulation paper and shown it to the world. He's shown himself to be an obvious idiot and bigot who won't read before he makes up his nasty opinions and threatens those who disagree with him. He shows himself and those who follow his automatically assumed opinions to be not only uninformed but dead wrong about their opinions. He gave C.I. a huge audience of people who might otherwise not have known the facts. And in fact, what has me laughing so loud for so long is that t date there are roughly 20 comments under the opinion piece showing the truth about Mohammed and Islam, the truth that would never have come out in such a great fashion if not for the useful idiocy of Warren Kinsella making a total fool of himself in public and giving the people a chance to show him as such in a national paper. Thank you, thank you, thank you, you idiot. You useful idiot!