On Extremism and Defending the MRM

By Sammy Allouba 

Much has been made of the men’s rights movement, especially in light of Elliot Rodger’s murderous rampage at the University of California. Numerous websites, whether it’s the Daily Kos or even Cracked.com, the self-proclaimed geniuses of the Internet, are taking up arms, calling the men’s movement a hate group comprised of misogynistic whiners whose only goal is to oppress women and put men back in charge of the world. Here’s my response to the lot of you.

You’re all wrong.

The men’s rights movement is an equality movement that aims to address the inequalities suffered by men and boys via cultural change. Even feminists (athough typically not that vocal about it) acknowledge that male members of society suffer from their fair share of inequity and injustice. I’m not entirely clear on why fighting for the rights of men and boys is a problem. I’m also not entirely clear on why pointing out how feminism’s pervasive influence on society has contributed to this inequality is a problem and why, despite its claims to the contrary, feminism maintains these inequalities while professing to care about the suffering of male members of society. Mind you, feminism is not the only problem men have to put up with in the struggle for equality, as gynocentrism and tradcons are also part of the equation—but that’s a subject for another post.

It needs to be said that every movement, political group, religious group, or what have you will always have radicals within it. There will always be fringe members who say truly outlandish things and advocate for violent crime. Popular examples include New Black Panthers King Samir Shabazz and former Al Qaeda leader and Muslim extremist Osama bin Laden. In the realm of gender politics, we MRAs have our attention drawn primarily to radicals within the feminist movement, both past and present. Trust me when I say there’s half a library’s worth of quotations to choose from. These are women who advocated for violence against men, whether it was aggravated assault, murder, or even eugenics. Amazingly, some of the work is categorized as satire rather than the hateful vitriol it really is. The trouble today, however, is that these women are still taken seriously by the modern feminist movement. They are seen as heroes and revolutionaries of the movement, and the worst part is that this concept of radical feminism has reached some truly scary heights.

There are also radicals within the men’s rights movement—individuals who, for one reason or another, say some truly awful and misogynistic things. They do exist—you can find them all over the Internet—and we must acknowledge them. The main difference when distinguishing feminism from the men’s movement is that within feminism, misandry is tolerated and even legitimized under the guise of, you guessed it, satire. If the hashtag #killallwomen was trending, I think it’s pretty safe to say Internet feminists would be up in arms, with the female blogosphere screaming about the neverending online harassment of women, no matter how many times someone (a man or a woman) might say it’s only satire. MRAs and anti-feminists alike will call out these hateful online trends and use them as proof that feminism isn’t interested in the well-being of men as they are only further spreading misandry. The usual response from the feminist camp is the world-famous “not all feminists are like that.”

In the men’s rights movement, however, we do not tolerate misogyny. Yes, we do call it out. Hell, I made a vlog on this very subject and voiced my acceptance of the term “NAWALT (not all women are like that).” I stand by what I said in that video, even though I was roundly set upon by the manosphere. Paul Elam has repeatedly said he will not tolerate misogyny on A Voice for Men and is quick to ban anyone who would try to break that rule—and for good reason. Violence and hatred will not lead to a productive discussion. It’s part of the reason why we have such a hard time taking feminism seriously. Radicals are calling the shots while moderates have become the fringe group.

The people who do the talking within our movement (the heavyweights, as I like to refer to them)—the Paul Elams, the Dean Esmays, the Karen Straughans, the Janet Bloomfields, the John Hemblings, and so on—are not radicals. They are not violence-advocating individuals who have an axe to grind against the female sex like so many feminists seem to have against the male sex. They are certainly vocal and are not afraid to speak their minds, but that doesn’t make them radicals. If being loud makes someone a radical, then George W. Bush Jr. should’ve been one since he never shut up about terrorism and protecting America. I feel like this is something I shouldn’t have to point out, especially since I’m positive these folks don’t need me to defend them. After all, who am I beyond just another Internet blogger? But when ignorant ideologues and trolls insult people I respect, I feel compelled to say something.

The most radical thing any of these people have ever said is that women are human beings with a brain, capable of taking responsibility for their lives, that men and boys are human beings who matter, and that feminism has gone over the edge. But even those statements are enough for Paul Elam to be labeled a “woman-hating prick.” Disagreeing with society’s mainstream view that women are helpless victims and men are evil oppressors does not make someone radical. It just makes them a person with a different opinion.

On Elliot Rodgers and the resulting fallout

By Sammy Allouba

On Friday, May 23, 2014, Elliot Rodger stabbed three people to death in his apartment and fatally shot and killed three people at the University of California. His victims were four men and two women. A lot of details have emerged since the mass-killing, and as one would expect, so have a lot theories and ideas about how and why it happened. They range from Rodger being mentally ill to him being a product of societal masculinity, born out of pure misogyny. I personally believe—like I do of all mass-killers, or, really, of anyone who commits a crime such as this—that his act of deviance is a product of a whole lot of shit that no one has looked into yet, and given that we need a scapegoat, an easy reason to figure out why this happened, the mainstream media is using the MRM as that scapegoat. Articles, which can be found in the lowbar to this post’s accompanying YouTube video, claim that Rodger was an MRA who subscribed to MRM channels on his YouTube account. This is relevant, they claim, because, according to them (being the brilliant genius journalists they are), the MRM promotes misogyny and breeds a hatred of women that is unprecedented. Of course, absolutely zero proof of this exists, as RazorBladeKandy2 has shown in his video analysis of the murders, but that does not matter one iota because, as we all know, feminists do not care about facts and evidence.

On the other side of things, people are claiming that Rodger was mentally unstable and acted upon his own violent urges given his high level of narcissism. I’m not a mental health expert of any sort, but I think it’s hard to argue against that point. Rodger was very clearly a nutcase beyond all nutcases who seriously needed help. I acknowledge that his parents sent him to professional help, but all I’m going to say is that it wasn’t enough, as far as I can tell. He needed something more than that, but what that is, I do not know.

As psychotic and crazy as I believe Rodger was, his actions were his own, and to blame any single influence is short-sighted. I cannot, and will not, deny that he was certainly a misogynist because he makes it very clear in his haunting manifesto that he rejected women because they rejected him. He felt entitled to love, a love he wasn’t getting from anyone, but from women in particular. Also, I think we cannot deny he was misandric, given that he slaughtered more men than women in his murderous bout, and he makes it very clear in his manifesto that he hated any guy who was able to get women because he felt so superior to them. Seriously, his ramblings sound like something out of a James Bond villain’s playbook. So which is it? Was he a misogynist? Was he a misandrist? Was he simply psychotic? Or is it any of the other usual questions, such as being able to access firearms too easily, or being abused as a child, and so on?

I am going to side with my inner Dude. In the film The Big Lebowski, while The Dude (played by Jeff Bridges) frantically explains to the wealthy Mr. Lebowski the reason why a planned ransom exchange did not occur, he blurts out, “New shit has come to light!” I believe we should follow the Dude’s lead and wait for new shit to come to light before we can really make informed decisions about Elliot Rodger’s actions. If that doesn’t suit your fancy, and you feel the need to speak out against the negativity the MRM is receiving in light of this tragedy—as bane666au asked us to do in his most recent video—I recommend offering, in a gentle manner (and I can’t stress that part enough), facts to the people you’re debating with. A lot of feminists are running with this story, along with the #YesAllWomen hashtag, claiming that it is indicative of the violence that all women experience on a daily basis and if they aren’t experiencing it, then they simply live in fear of it. When this happens, offer them statistics that show what we MRAs already know: men are the majority victims of violent crime, and women don’t have a real justification of living in fear, which is actually due to the never-ending hysteria about female domestic abuse or rape in society. To hear a feminist describe women’s experiences in society, you’d think a woman couldn’t set foot outside her own home, lest she be ravaged by six million men waiting  outside her door, tongues hanging out, drooling incessantly, mumbling, “WOOOOMMMMAAAAANNN!! MUST, FEEEEEED, MUST RAAAAAPE, PUUUUUSSSSSYYYYY, SOOOO GOOOOD!!!”

We can turn the tide, guys, and we will in time. But let’s not get wrapped up in the emotional tide that is flowing in light of Elliot Rodger’s criminal actions and allow ourselves to only add fuel to the anti-MRM fire. Let’s wait until new shit comes to light, and then make real decisions about how society can move forward from this tragedy.

A response to the National Post’s Robyn Urback

By Sammy Allouba   Last week in her National Post article, Robyn Urback asked the question “What part of ‘don’t show your underwear’ is oppressive and sexist?” Well, Robyn, the truth is … none of it. There is absolutely nothing oppressive and sexist about being modest and respecting basic dress codes, especially in educational institutions. But when you’re an ideologue with an axe to grind, suddenly everything becomes oppressive and sexist. I don’t mean you specifically, Robyn. I’m speaking in general terms.

The quote you included from Lauren Strapagiel—in which she says, “What this tells young girls is that their bodies … are a threat. … That their bodies are offensive”—seems to imply that girls can do whatever they want, whenever they want, without having to worry about rules and regulations. I think the larger issue here, for me at least, is how this degrades young girls and teaches them not to have any self-respect. I find it ironic, given that feminism is supposed to be about empowering girls and women. How exactly do you empower someone by telling them to behave like a child?

Strapagiel seems to be forgetting a common-sense guideline that you wrote about in your article: dressing appropriately for one’s environment. I’d also like to add that a person’s body language is equally as important as the way they dress, and subsequently, the way they present themselves will tell the world about how they view themselves. If you choose to wear a business suit or dress, walk tall, and are well groomed, people will look at you with high regard because you are clearly demonstrating that you care about your appearance. However, if you are the sort of person who dresses sloppily and wears runners all of the time and you walk with a bit of a waddle, sorry to say it, folks, but people won’t think too highly of you even if you think it’s unfair. We are programmed to react differently to those we deem to be successful, and how you dress affects those perceptions. The story is no different for young boys and girls. Boys who wear their pants low or girls who wear their skirts high will be viewed in a less than favourable light.

I also think that this topic ties into the larger issue of rape. What follows is written in a very unapologetic manner, and I’d like to preface it by saying that absolutely no one ever deserves, asks, or begs to be raped. If someone rapes you, then they are at fault and should most certainly be punished to the fullest extent of the law, provided that the necessary evidence is available when a case goes to trial. However, there are steps that people can take to minimize their chances of being the victim of a violent crime. It’s not that dressing in a provocative manner is in and of itself the cause of rape. That’s not it at all, so don’t misunderstand me. But when a predator is on the prowl for prey, that predator will select the prey that looks to be the most vulnerable. Factors that can contribute to that vulnerability include the way someone dresses because, again, it tells that predator how its prey wants to be seen. I know. It’s not pretty. It’s extremely unfair and downright aggravating, to say the least. But that’s the way our brains function.

Telling girls especially that they don’t need to adjust their dress to suit their environment isn’t empowering. It’s actually quite insulting and, dare I say it, misogynistic. Teaching someone to be a child rather than a responsible, mature adult doesn’t do them any favours. We hold boys, however, to a higher standard. We tell young boys to pull their pants up or not to wear gang symbols. We expect them to grow up into “respectable young men,” yet, according to Strapagiel’s words, young girls should be free to do as they please and show off their bodies and be liberal with themselves. Girls shouldn’t be ashamed of their bodies, and as the old adage goes, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it.” If a grown woman wants to dress in a manner that shows off her body, that’s her choice, and, I hope, she understands what her dressing in a certain manner means to the outside world, even if she claims not to care what other people will think of her. I would not grant this same kind of freedom to a teenaged girl, however, because she is still learning about the world and about how people interact with each other. Also, before someone screams “double standard,” yes, I would absolutely hold teenaged boys to the same standard. This kind of reasoning applies to both sexes.

If I ever have kids, I will raise them to be respectable people and teach them good moral values. That includes respecting themselves so that they will in turn be respected by the people around them. If you want to get anywhere in life, you will have to care, to some extent, about how other people view you because it will affect your future.

Original article: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/30/robyn-urback-what-part-of-dont-show-your-underwear-is-oppressively-sexist/

Jessica Valenti Must Check Her Feminist Privilege!

By Fidelbogen

Jessica Valenti appears to live in a time warp from eight years ago … or could it be 18? It’s hard to tell, since nothing ever changes in the feminist universe. Said universe is an infinite loop where the same old bathwater gurgles down the memory drain and cycles through the tap again, ad infinitum, and grows murkier every time. Only the feminists themselves enjoy this monotonous reiteration, but the rest of the world is getting bloody tired of it.

Valenti’s recent Guardian opinion piece about mass-murderer Elliot Rodger is a case in point, but before I write about that I should make one thing perfectly clear: Jessica Valenti is a feminist. That’s right. I am not belabouring the obvious in order to sound silly. We should know this by now, yet it bears repeating: Jessica Valenti is a feminist.

All right, I will be the first to admit that Valenti has publicly avowed her feminism countless times. It is to her credit that she doesn’t hide her feminism as so many do, but on the other hand, she can’t back out of it now. Everything she says is spoken in the light of her feminism and cannot be understood otherwise.

Her opinion piece offers nothing but ideological talking points that we have heard again and again over the years. She says nothing new and certainly nothing illuminating but rather chooses to bore and alienate the non-feminist public. She not only insults our intelligence but also flatly ignores our very existence in the first place – and that is simply intolerable.

From this it would appear that Jessica Valenti, the feminist, suffers a delusion common among her peer group, that feminism is the world. And that is why I insist on repeating the obvious: Jessica Valenti is a feminist. The very presence of other voices, talking about you and telling you what you are, is a powerful tonic against the solipsistic fantasy that you “are the world.”

Jessica Valenti, the feminist, must believe that we are jolly thick or that we have a jolly short memory. Consider an article about the Julian Assange case that she published in theWashington Post in late 2010, from which we cite the following (emphasis mine):

“Swedish rape laws don’t ban ‘sex by surprise’ (a term used by Assange’s lawyer as a crass joke), but they do go much further than U.S. laws do, and we should look to them as a potential model for our own legislation.

In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn’t give it.”

Did you catch that? Valenti never flatly states that she would shift the burden of proof to the accused – she’s too clever for that! What she does instead is recommend current Swedish rape law as a “potential model” for the United States. Then she adds in a sort-of-parenthetical way that “legal experts” are thinking about reversing the burden of proof in Swedish rape trials. That’s right, Valenti is obliquely hinting that the latter sounds like a nifty idea while giving herself plausible deniability because she never directly states the idea herself.

Something else here: did you notice how Valenti was careful to say “the alleged rapist” but forgot to say “the alleged victim”?

All right. Jessica Valenti, the feminist, is fine with creating an anti-male double standard in law that would destroy more innocent men. She apparently sees no problem with it, even though she is sharp enough to realize that other people would indeed see a problem with it – and she doesn’t want to get caught harbouring such a wicked idea! In other words, she wants to cover her ass.

We pro-male partisans have an iron-trap memory for things like this. That is because we too are “the world,” are keenly aware of what goes on, and can clearly see feminism for what it is even if feminism (which considers only itself “the world”) cannot see itself for what it is.

What we have shown here marks Valenti quite definitively as a feminist. She clearly doesn’t give a toot about equal rights where men are concerned, and we are entitled to wonder if that frame of mind pervades everything else she talks about. So let this inform our thinking when we consider her recent Guardian article, in which she writes about the Elliot Rodger affair.

The title of her opinion piece is “Elliot Rodger’s California shooting spree: further proof that misogyny kills.”

I do not agree that “misogyny” (hatred of women) kills. To kill is to inflict death, and the only way to make it happen is through physical agency. Since misogyny is a mental state, it cannot inflict death. I grant you that it might inspire the physical agency necessary for killing, yet by itself it generates no body count.

Furthermore, it just so happens that “misogyny” is feminism’s pet monster, although the word itself is almost never honestly used. You see, even though bona fide misogyny is not the norm, feminists brandish the mere word as a weapon to commit moral battery against anyone who holds women morally accountable or simply dares to speak harshly of feminism (as I am doing here). Actual hatred of women is not necessary. If they decide to call you a misogynist, they will, and there is nothing you can do about it.

That is why I cannot take the title of Valenti’s opinion piece seriously – both because “misogyny” doesn’t kill a damned thing and because Valenti cannot be trusted to use language honestly (she is undoubtedly a feminist). And when you combine all of this with Valenti’s underlying misandry (hatred of men or maleness), then it becomes a deadly cocktail indeed.

The title was bad enough, but it gets worse. Valenti is keen to promote an agenda, that much is evident. The thesis of her article hinges on the notion of Rodger’s “mental illness.” Valenti doesn’t like that idea, and she eagerly looks for some other way to unriddle the horrid tragedy. After all, she’s a feminist, and explaining Elliot Rodger as simply a “nut case” would not yield any political hay.

“According to his family, Rodger was seeking psychiatric treatment. But to dismiss this as a case of a lone ‘madman’ would be a mistake.

It not only stigmatizes the mentally ill – who are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it – but glosses over the role that misogyny and gun culture play (and just how foreseeable violence like this is) in a sexist society.”

There we have it. Jessica Valenti, the feminist, wants to exploit this tragedy in order to make political hay for feminism. Her passing remark about “stigmatizing the mentally ill” shouldn’t impress anybody. Not only is it questionable whether Jessica truly gives a rip about this, but, if Elliot Rodger was indeed mentally ill, it is also only proper to factor that into our search for the truth.

In her concluding phrase, Valenti spills the beans and betrays her agenda conclusively. She also uses her feminist privilege because she is plainly controlling the narrative according to a feminist ideological model. But rather than offer any proof, she merely assumes that she, being a feminist, speaks from a position of authority.

To a non-feminist, it is far from self-evident that “misogyny” and “gun culture” play the roles that Valenti describes, or that the society in which these things allegedly happen is indeed “sexist.” Nor is such violence necessarily “foreseeable” – we are free to take exception to any of these claims. Valenti is merely being presumptuous but seems oblivious that she is doing so.

“If feminism says X, then X is true.” That is the subtext that runs in the background of Valenti’s mind, and she wants us to lap it up without a word.

And that is why Jessica Valenti, the feminist, can blithely rattle off one bucket of bollocks after another with no trace of respect for the reading public and no hint that she even takes responsibility for what she is saying. She is a feminist, therefore she enjoys feminist privilege:

“Rodger, like most young American men, was taught that he was entitled to sex and female attention.”

Rot! There is no evidence that “most” young American men are taught anything of the kind! I’ve seen precious little such evidence myself, and I’ve been around. The most I’ve ever seen is scattered pockets of men who show signs of such “teaching” – mainly thugs and low-lifes. Valenti is simply pulling this story out of her ass, and she ought to slink away like a guilty dog because she is lying, poisoning the well of trust and understanding, and fomenting war between the sexes. But of course, that is what feminists do. That is what keeps feminism in business.

Yes, it is feminist privilege to pull wild statements out of your ass and expect the world to swallow them without a murmur. In the feminist universe, reality is whatever feminism says it is, and you are a “misogynist” if you think for yourself.

Remember that this is the same Jessica Valenti who feels no moral objection to railroading innocent men in the court system. So it is understandable why this particular feminist would happily paint men with the slime brush every chance she gets.

However, the plot thickens:

“Rodger was reportedly involved with the online men’s rights movement: allegedly active on one forum and said to have been following several men’s rights channels on YouTube. The language Rodger used in his videos against women – like referring to himself as an ‘alpha male’ – is common rhetoric in such circles.”

Once again, Valenti lies brazenly. There is in fact no such thing as “the online men’s rights movement.” Rather, there is a hodgepodge of groups discussing loosely related themes on various websites and forums. These sometimes overlap and other times only make a tangent, but overall they are about as monolithic as the population of New York City. Furthermore, this “movement” has no definite perimeter – it merges seamlessly into the general culture, and not all of it is “online.” Finally, the term “alpha male” is far from a universal usage among these groups – there are vast swaths in which you will never hear this expression. If Valenti had done her homework, she would know all this, and maybe she does. At any rate, she is a lousy journalist because she wants to indoctrinate her readers rather than inform them.

Jessica Valenti, the feminist, is also a “racist” – as we gather from the following, which comes after a short paragraph about the Southern Poverty Law Center (emphasis mine):

“Yet, as the artist Molly Crabapple pointed out on Twitter: ‘White terrorism is always blamed on guns, mental health – never poisonous ideology.’”

This seems to arrive out of nowhere, since “white terrorism” has no discernible bearing on the matter under discussion. But Valenti shoehorns this into her discourse because she wants to throw her opposition off balance by creating a deflection. It’s a red herring. Nothing but a red herring. And since it is juxtaposed with a reference to the SPLC, it works by induction upon the reader’s mind. Valenti wants to insinuate, without expressly stating so, that “men’s rights” is somehow “white” and possibly “racist.” That’s how she operates.

Shall we go on? Valenti says this:

“If we need to talk about this tragic shooting in terms of illness, though, let’s start with talking about our cultural sickness – a sickness that refuses to see misogyny as anything other than inevitable.”

Once more, she is pulling stuff out of her ass. We want to ask, “What cultural sickness?” for Valenti reckons that if she merely insinuates the existence of this sickness, her readers will nod along and never give her any trouble. But we don’t know that this cultural sickness is a real thing, and furthermore, given the feminist debasement of language, we don’t even know what “misogyny” means in this example. So we can wad up that whole worthless passage and throw it in the garbage.

Next this:

“The family attorney said that police interviewed Rodger and thought he was a ‘perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human.’

I have to wonder how much police dismissed Rodger’s video rants because of the expectation that violent misogyny in young men is normal and expected.”

Valenti does not in the least “have to wonder” this, but she chose to do so anyway. Fine, that’s her choice. Personally, I don’t find the case wondersome at all. The police, I would say, made a poor judgment. What the hell, that happens! But Valenti wanted to make political hay for feminism, so she forced an interpretation from a scenario in the service of a narrative. By the look of it, she got what she wanted, and the article went to press.

Now this:

“‘Dismissing violent misogynists as ‘crazy’ is a neat way of saying that violent misogyny is an individual problem, not a cultural one,’ feminist blogger Melissa McEwan tweeted.”

Piffle! This is a circular argument and nothing better. When feminist blogger Melissa McEwan dismissively talks of “dismissing” something, it poisons the well against the very idea that a violent misogynist might actually, truly, be crazy after all! And since I find no objection to that possibility in theory, I cannot be bullied into acquiescing to the feminist theory about violent misogyny, can I? Valenti conveniently borrowed this snippet, so you can see how the feminists take in one another’s intellectual laundry. Props to Valenti for admitting that McEwan is a feminist.

Then this:

“The truth is that there is no such thing as a lone misogynist – they are created by our culture, and by communities that tell them that their hatred is both commonplace and justified.”

No, the truth is that this statement has no inherent power to command the belief of any non-feminist. Proclamation by a feminist does not make a thing true, so you can immediately flush this one down the toilet unless you have time for an intellectual audit on the spot.

And finally, this:

“So when we say that these things are unstoppable, what we are really saying is that we’re unwilling to do the work to stop them. Violence against women does not have to be inevitable, but it is almost always foreseeable: what matters is what we do about it.”

And again, this has no power to command our belief. Valenti has no idea what “we” are “really saying,” or what “we” are theoretically willing to do in situation x or y – her remarks are sheer speculation, not to say fantasy. That said, violence against women or anybody else is a factor in this world and not likely to fly away any time soon. It is sometimes foreseeable and other times not, but if we live our lives in the best way we can, we can steer clear from 99% of it.

All right, I think I have given Valenti’s opinion piece all the attention it deserves. You might wonder why I gave it any at all, and I can only reply that the blockbuster Elliot Rodger event weighed greatly in my decision. A desire to sharpen my claws a bit also entered into it. At any rate, the feminist spin machine is now going wild about Elliot Rodger and spinning the wildest web of lies you can imagine. And we can plainly see that Jessica Valenti, with her privileged position at the Guardian, is leading the charge.

I must confess that I am disappointed, but then, what was I expecting? Something more formidable? Formidable hardly describes it. If this is the best that feminist Jessica Valenti can bring to the Elliot Rodger episode, then she ought to enter another line of work as soon as possible, for the occasion requires a competence she apparently doesn’t have.

Feminist privilege means nothing if not the privilege to rattle off dogmatic twaddle and not get challenged for it. Well, Jessica Valenti must check her feminist privilege and Back The Fuck Up.

Ex-PUA Elliot Rodger commits mass-murder; Establishment attacks all non-feminists

By Luigi Logan (aka Fidelbogen)

The Daily Kos, a widely read political-left journal, recently published an article about mass-killer Elliot Rodger. Read it carefully, bearing in mind that the Daily Kos is a well-known reactionary bastion of the SJW (social justice warrior) tribe.

This journal is a mouthpiece of the feminist Establishment if ever there was one, and in this article we see the maxim borne out that feminism cannot tolerate the existence of people who are not feminist. Mind you, the Daily Kos does not clearly confess to being a feminist publicationbutpresumptuously saddles you, the reader, with the burden of figuring this out. Okay, fine. If they will not be forthcoming about their feminism, then I have no choice but to LABEL them.

The Daily Kos article is purportedly about Elliot Rodger – but only on the surface. The political subtext goes far deeper.

It is probably a safe bet that Elliot Rodger is not a feminist. Yes, I’d fearlessly wager my life savings on that.

But if you have read the article, you will know that Elliot Rodger is a mentally unstable chump with serious issues, apparently of a sexual nature. You will know that he has been a reader of “PUA” and “manosphere” literature on the internet. Consequently, you will know that he makes the ideal poster kid for every feminist’s idea of a politically outspoken non-feminist person.

Anybody with any sense can tell you that non-feminist people number in the billions and that all moral generalizations about them are simply irresponsible. They are not an organization, not a “movement,” but simply a demographic – and, incidentally, the majority of the human race.  As such, they make a cross-section of human nature. Let that be noted.

But mark my words, the feminist Establishment will capitalize on this tragedy to slander the majority of the human race – the part that is not feminist. They will waste no time trotting out comparisons with Marc Lepine and George Sodini, and as the Daily Kos article does, they will depict non-feminist men and women as members of the PUA (pickup artist) cult. Weird as it sounds, they will try to brand non-feminist men and women as “a nebulous group of pickup artists and misogynists who have found each other online” – never mind how freaking bizarre it is to paint the majority of the human race that way!

But, friends, that is how feminism rolls. And their behaviour is not hard to decipher, not hard at all. They are making Elliott Rodger a propaganda stand-in for any non-feminist person who is outspokenly critical of feminism.

Now listen closely, because this is where it gets tricky. We have no evidence yet that Elliott Rodger was anything but apolitical in regards to feminism as such. He was not outspoken about feminism, and he apparently had nothing to say about male human rights in an ideological way. He was by no stretch an intellectual with an “analysis.” He was only a sexually frustrated chump with mental issues, who apparently “hooked up” with PUA literature and websites such as the “Manhood Academy.”

And yet the feminist journal Daily Kos deliberately links Elliott Rodger with anybody, anywhere, who dares to speak his or her mind critically about feminism. How do they do it? Simple. They tag Rodger and his activities with the label “men’s rights.” In the minds of the Daily Kos audience, that is enough to justify a cultural lynching of the entire politically activated non-feminist population. Chillingly simple, isn’t it?

Notice that I used the phrase “politically activated.” That means that if you are a nice little non-feminist chump and don’t stick your head above the parapet, then you won’t catch any of the propaganda machine-gun fire.

Yes, if you are a nice little non-feminist chump, you will not end up like Warren Farrell or Janice Fiamengo. But if you won’t keep your mouth shut, they will clump and tar you with this Elliot Rodger guy and put you on the Southern Poverty Law Center hatewatch list.

Again, if you are a good little non-feminist, and if you act meekly and humbly, they will leave you alone and not shove you into the same tar barrel with Marc Lepine, George Sodini, and now Elliot Rodger.

Yes, they will leave you alone.

For now, anyway.