Skip to content

Kids Die, Feminists Cheer

Kids Die, Feminists Cheer published on

By now, everyone has heard that some psycho piece of shit called Elliot Rodger has gone on a shooting spree because he had a grudge against the world — especially against young women who didn’t think being rich was enough to turn a creepy weirdo into someone who should be seen as a romantic prospect.

Rather predictably, the lowlife dirtbags known as feminists are using his obvious hatred of women to blame the Men’s Rights Movement for psycho-boy’s shameful rampage. Never mind that his main problem seems to have been feeling rejected by women and that the MRM makes a point of repeatedly telling men that life is not about gaining female approval and that Rodger does not seem to be a member of any online MRM group! No, what matters is lying about the opposition in order to discredit their ideas in the eyes of those too stupid to know the difference between shit and chocolate, ad hominem and actual argument. And if that means using the tragic deaths of several young people to their own benefit, that’s just fine by the plutocracy’s lapdogs.

Manslug goes about it in a subtle way, simply making a link between misogyny and the murders and pointing out Rodger’s association with some anti-PUA site. But the implication is still there – after all, who are seen as the main spreaders of “misogyny” on the ‘net? That’s right, it’s us nasty MRAs.

Others have been less roundabout. Something called The Belle Jar (alas, I am not making that up) starts by telling us that it is not fair to assume the psycho isn’t psycho because…

“ We have no evidence yet that he suffered from any kind of mental illness or was under any sort of treatment.”

Is this just idiocy, or is there a darker meaning to it? Could this person really believe that a man who shoots several people for no good reason is somehow normal? If he is not mentally ill then surely he is mentally healthy. Is this how she believes mentally healthy people act? Or is she trying to imply that this is how mentally healthy men act, that this is what lurks in all of us? Perhaps, perhaps not, but she does follow it up with this rather suspect claim…

“ What we do know is that he was a Men’s Rights Activist, or MRA.”

That probably tilts things towards the interpretation that, in her view, it is indeed only in men that such behaviour is not a sign of mental illness. She also claims that he subscribed to several MRA channels on YouTube but fails to tell us which channels those are. Funny, huh?

She then claims that the MRM teaches young men that…

“… women, and especially feminist women, are to blame for their unhappiness. It teaches them that women lie, that they cheat, trick and manipulate. It teaches them that men as a social class are dominant over women and that they are entitled to women’s bodies. It teaches them that women who won’t give them what they want deserve some kind of punishment.”

This is quite simply a lie. While we do point out the evils of feminism, we certainly don’t blame them for everything – just the shit they are responsible for. Neither do we claim that women as a group lie, cheat etc, only that many do and many don’t. As for being entitled to women’s bodies, I have yet to come across that bizarre claim on an MRA site, much less the idea that women who don’t put out deserve punishment. I’ll tell you another thing I have never seen an MRA suggest – that it might be okay to wipe out all the other men in order to increase one’s own chances of getting laid. Elliot Rodger, on the other hand, did once suggest exactly that.

But the vilest attack comes, predictably enough, from that steaming cesspool known as The Daily Dross, er, I mean Kos. As is so often the case, left-wing means anti-male and any opportunity to shit on people who dare to try to make the world a better place for men and boys is eagerly welcomed. Some asswipe called OllieGarkey, aka Will McLeod, begins his lying at the very top of the page with the title “Elliot Rodger, Gunman in California Mass Shooting, was influenced by the “Men’s Rights Movement.” The worthless weasel then goes on to give zero evidence of Rodger’s links to the MRM, posting instead evidence that he belonged to some sort of anti-PUA site. The entire article is an avalanche of bullshit the likes of which would make even the harpies at Jezebel blush…

“The true Alpha Male. What those who call themselves the Mens Rights Movement aspire to be.”

The reality is that the movement, in general, eschews the very idea of the alpha male as a damaging one that we can all live without. Why we would aspire to be that which we reject is something that only a character as twisted as McLeod can understand.

“We know for a fact that Rodgers was influenced by this movement, as he is subscribed to multiple “pick up artist” or “mens rights” channels on YouTube.”

This supposed fact is a straight out lie, one which even McLeod contradicts with his own list of Rodger’s channels…

“They include:

“The Player Supreme Show” which rails against the feminization of men and talks about how to pick up women.

“RSDfreetour” which is a series of self-help seminars run by RSD Nation, a “pick up artist” site.

There’s also a user called McHenry Cruiser who in addition to being a pickup artist is a comedian who has some kind of beef with Louis CK, and another called “Squatting Cassanova,” who seems to be your average PUA.”

You will notice that the term MRA is not mentioned in that list. No, these guys are wannabe pick up artists and wanting pussy does not make you an MRA – if it did we would have the largest social movement in the history of humanity!

Notice how he follows up his list with this disclaimer…

“I’m still digging through some of the folks he’s subscribed to.”

In other words, “Yeah, I kinda admit there’s nothing MRA going on there, but trust me on this one.”

McLeod then spends the rest of his flimsy piece repeating the same lie, namely that PUA = MRA, despite the well-known animosity between the two groups. He may as well argue that Democrat = Republican and that MSNBC = Fox! He also claims that the guy should have sought mental help, by which I assume he means treatment of some sort, so I guess he isn’t totally shit-brained, which is more than can be said for Belle Jar.

But let’s make no mistake. These people do not actually care about the untimely deaths of all these kids. They feel no real sorrow over what has happened, they merely see this as a great opportunity to vilify their political enemies. Chances are that as soon as they saw the CNN bulletins about a gunman killing a bunch of girls they started muttering breathlessly “Please be an MRA! Please. Please. Please.” And when the lukewarm news came down their reaction was “Oh, well, a former PUA and frustrated virgin. Close enough!” This is the kind of mentality on display in these articles. While the rest of us are going “What the fuck!?!?!” they are going “Yipee!” Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if the kind of people who are so willing to exploit the slaughter of innocent youngsters with their whole lives ahead of them spend half their day hoping for this kind of thing to happen – just so they can use the tragic events to vilify an enemy against which they have no real arguments.

Feminism – The Plutocracy’s Lapdog

Feminism – The Plutocracy’s Lapdog published on

(This is the first of a three part series on the ways in which feminism serves the plutocracy. It was originally going to be a very long one-piece thing but after smoke started to come out of my ears I realized I would be less likely to suffer an cerebral rupture if I split it into several chunks. As I have been working on this on and off for six months I am not about to make any promises as to how soon the other parts will come out. Days, weeks, months, it all depends on whether or not there’s anything good on TV.)

One of the more pertinent facts constantly ignored by most MRAs and ground troop feminists – as opposed to their Generals – is that, in all likelihood, the second wave of feminism has from the very beginning been a plutocratic project. Both the left and the right seem oblivious to this, mostly because they have bought the oft-repeated lie that feminism is some sort of left wing ideology, a cowpat that is easily swallowed given Karl Marx’s support for the wiminz and the idiot left’s support for feminism. The main problem is that everyone keeps looking at what feminists say and not at what they actually do, at the actual outcomes of their actions.

When you look at who has actually benefited from the second wave, it is the rich bastards who come out on top. It is they who have gained the most from the feminists’ work. Is this all just a terrible accident? Are the women who lead the feminist movement really so dumb that they have not, despite decades of evidence, realized that they are doing the devil’s work? No, this does not seem at all likely. These women are not dumbasses, yet the great majority of them continue to do their masters’ bidding year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation. It is quite viable that one or two of the leadership might do this due to some intellectual blind spot or due to some psychological factor, but the idea that this is happening with all of them is ludicrous. A few unwitting helpers, and a multitude of all too willing hench-wenches, that’s what we have in the feminist leadership.

So what, then, are the plutocratic aims of second wave feminism? They are numerous, but the main ones boil down to this – feminize the workforce, spread irrational modes of thinking, and psychologically attack men from the lower classes. Sure, there are also other elements such as helping the plutocrats to crack down on free speech by screaming misogyny then asking Facebook to remove “objectionable” material – this is a well-oiled slope that is intended to eventually make it more acceptable for things like Facebook to censor other “objectionable” material such as calls for revolution or the dissolving of the state. Another obvious effect of feminism has been to help the New “Left” distract the lower classes from the issues that really matter – class and the environment – by harping on about less important matters such as the discomfort of high heels and the scarcity of female football players! Face it, lefties, it’s not as if Wall St cares whether their stooge in the White House is male or female, black or white, straight or gay – as long as the puppet dances to their tune, all is well. The feminist lapdogs also encourage a much harder line on law and order by spreading hysteria about “Violence Against Women,” knowing full well that in a culture such as ours women are of primary concern and that anything is justified to keep the sacred creatures safe – even if it means locking men up for a couple of weeks simply because they have been charged with domestic violence. How does this benefit the plutocrats? Well, if certain places can now lock men up for a couple of weeks without a conviction, why shouldn’t we be able to do the same for men charged with – but not convicted of – making revolutionary or anti-state comments? See what I mean by a well-oiled slope? But these are the lesser of the Second Wave’s attainments, the main three are, as I see it, the deadliest to the interests of the lower classes and they will be the focus of this series. First, we have the way feminism has ruined conditions for the lower class workforces…

Over the last few decades, feminism has convinced millions of shit-brained women that, somehow, 40 hours in a boring office or a stinking factory is more fun and fulfilling than looking after your own children in the comfort of your own home – because as every waitress knows, it is soooo much more rewarding to feed coffee and donuts to strangers than dinner to your own children. Somehow, the dumber members of the female sex bought the idea that – unlike their husbands, brothers and fathers – class would not stand in their way and they would become someone important. CEOs, doctors, lawyers, the kind of thing that the males in their family never managed to become. I have yet to decide whether it was sexism or pure idiocy that led so many women to believe in this particular fantasy, but I should also point out that many women seem to have bought the idea that being a housewife would lead them to break out in psychosomatic boils – I kid you not, Betty Friedan actually makes that claim in The Feminine Mystique – so I lean towards seeing it as a confluence of sexism and sheer stupidity.

Having bought the mirage of the workplace paradise, millions of female Zippies flooded into the workforce. This benefited the plutocracy in at least two ways. First, it brought down wages and salaries through increased competition for jobs. Simple numbers alone would have done this, throw in the fact that most of these deluded females were providing the family’s supplementary income rather than its primary one – and were therefore both able and willing to take less money for the same work – and you have an easily foreseeable recipe for disaster. How long do you think it took bosses to overcome any traditionalist objections they may have had to women in the workforce once they realized that Mrs. X was willing to work for less than Mr. Y? Not bloody long – greed trumps patriarchy any day of the week.

Secondly, it made the whole workforce more compliant. By filling as many parts of the workplace as possible with the sex which, historically, is less likely to rebel against oppression the bosses make it easier to downgrade wages and conditions, knowing fully well that a woman with a steel pipe is highly unlikely to kick in their door and smash their heads in, much less go up against a horde of blue-clad Stormtroopers. You show me one woman like Mother Jones, and I will show you a dozen men like Eugene Debbs. The plutocracy knows from their experiences with previously male dominated careers such as teaching and secretarial work that once the women take over you can reel out your dick and piss on everything without fear of any significant revolt. Even Chomsky, not a man given to saying things feminists don’t like, points out that when the U.S corporations started outsourcing to Jamaica in the 70s they deliberately chose female-dominated workforces as they knew they would be easier to dominate than the Jamaican men.

Once this initial gaggle of knuckleheads flooded into the workforce many of the more sensible women – the ones who realized that the ideal life did not consist of filling out forms or assembling widgets – were forced to go to work part time in order to supplement what was now their husband’s smaller wage packet. Good idea in the short term, but not so much in the long term, as this second wave of women brought yet more competition – again from members of the less rebellious sex seeking only a secondary income – and wages and salaries came down even further. Soon, of course, these women would have to be working full time just like hubby and now we have a situation in which both mom and dad can be working like dogs and still not be able to support a family – the kind of situation that a couple of years ago led British charity Save the Children to set up a campaign to help not children in the third world but kids in Britain itself! You don’t need to be an economist to realize this is a situation that has the plutocrats rolling with laughter and giggling with delight. The left, of course, would like to lay all the blame at the feet of things like outsourcing and mechanization, factors that have obviously contributed to the problem of lower wages etc, but steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the part the feminist movement has had in this attack on the lower classes lest it reflect badly on their feminist friends and, by extension, on women. The right, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge it lest it make their capitalist idols look bad by associating them with feminists!

Incidentally, this filling of the workforce with women has, in turn, facilitated the transition from a human workforce to a machine workforce. Given that few people in the sixties could have predicted the explosion in technology that would soon make workers of both sexes redundant, I suspect that the original goal was to permanently feminize the workforce so as to more easily control it. But the plutocracy is smart – or at least it can afford to hire minions who are smart – and it has adapted the strategy to the new circumstances. What was initially intended as a permanent feminization of the workforce has become only a stopgap on the way to the obsolescence of the great majority of both working class and middle class workers. Permanent feminization, temporary feminization —  either way you get a workforce that puts up with more shit, including being made obsolete by Robby The Robot.

So this is where feminism has dumped the common man and woman – in a cesspool, a near-Dickensian situation in which the average couple with children now finds itself working around 50% more than a few decades ago. From dad doing 40 hours in the office or factory and mom doing, say, 30 hours at home to both of them doing 40 in the workplace and then having to split the housework and childrearing between them. I’m no mathematician but I’m pretty sure that that adds up to about 55 hours for each of them. More work both in and outside of the home, less pay, less benefits, less dignity – just the way the plutocrats like it. Ask yourself also, why doesn’t the plutocracy destroy feminism? We know they can do it, they control the media and the government. Simply stop talking about all these feminist issues and within a couple of years feminism will be relegated to the dark corners of the internet, it will become to most people nothing more than a vague, malodorous memory. Yet year after year, decade after decade the plutocrats leave feminism to go on its merry way. They crushed socialism, anarchism, communism, the unions, even liberalism is being dismantled. Yet feminism remains untouched. There are only two viable explanations for this amnesty – at best feminism does the plutocracy no harm, at worst it is actually serving its interests. You already know which of those I think is most likely. So make no mistake, boys and girls – it may be the feminists who are carrying out the hit, but it’s the plutocrats who are paying the bill.

Amy Schumer is a rapist

Amy Schumer is a rapist published on
Confessed rapist Amy Schumer wondering where she can buy some roofies

Recently, the third rate comedienne to your left got up in front of a coven of her sister feminists at the Ms. Foundation for Women’s “Gloria Awards and Gala” and told them this enchanting tale about some hot college boy who had never shown any sexual interest in her until one glorious morning when he finally called her up and asked her to come on over. Being hot to trot, young Amy races to her beloved’s quarters…

“Finally, the door opens. It’s Matt, but not really. He’s there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can’t focus on me. He’s actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. “Hey!” he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He’s fucking wasted.”

Let that sink in. This dirtbag female actually admits that the guy is totally out of it, drunk as a skunk. He probably would have fucked a walrus, or even Marcia Pappas, at that moment, which means unless he’s into bestiality he is in no shape to decide what he does and does not want to do. That is the whole point of the idea that you shouldn’t have it off with people who are wasted – even if they seem enthusiastic they are not in control of themselves, their own minds, or their genitals for that matter. This is one of the few sensible standards promoted by feminism and one they strictly enforce when the wasted one is a female. When the semi-comatose partner is a male, not so much. Not surprisingly, devoted member of the sisterhood that she is, Amy didn’t let her victim’s near-catatonic state deter her….

“He put on some music, and we got in bed… His alcohol-swollen mouth, I felt like I was being tongued by someone who had just been given Novocain…His fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there. And then came the sex, and I use that word very loosely. His penis was so soft, it felt like one of those de-stress things that slips from your hand? So he was pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate…He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal?”

To answer rape-woman’s question, yes it is still getting head – but it is also rape. If a man gets into bed with a woman who is so wasted she keeps falling asleep while trying to blow him, then it is rape, no matter how many times the girl with the sleeping brain tries to ride his dick. The same applies with the sexes reversed, at least to the just and logical mind. Not surprisingly, there has been no feminist outcry over Schumer’s rape confession, no flood of calls to the police from the harpies present at the Gala asking them to come on over and arrest the rapist in their midst, no petitions urging the D.A to look into what is a very clear case of rape, nothing. What there has been is some defending of this predatory female from that least surprising of sources, Manslug, who has recently renamed his blog “We Hunted The Mammoth,” presumably because he has finally realized that a fat guy who runs a blog called Manboobz is just asking to be ridiculed. In a lengthy and morally and intellectually tortuous post, Manslug claims straight out that what Schumer did is not rape, describing it instead as “a regrettable sexual encounter.” This is to be expected from a man who, if looks are anything to go by, is so desperate for a shag that he will do or say anything, no matter how vile, to get some female attention. It is also more evidence that Manslug is the scum of the earth — may some giant kid soon come along and pour a truckload of salt on him.

From other feminist quarters the silence has been deafening. Whether this can be taken as a silent agreement that Schumer is indeed a rapist or whether it is merely an attempt to kill the issue by denying it oxygen, I do not know. What I do know is that the lines can often be blurred when it comes to alcohol/drugs and consent. How much booze is too much? One drink? Two drinks? Five? Yes, the line can be hard to spot, but much in the same way that you don’t have to know exactly when you crossed the state lines to realize that once you are flying over the Brooklyn Bridge you are now in New York, neither do you need to know where the line is to know it has been crossed when the affected person has reached the point at which they keep passing out – even if they do keep trying to fuck you they are in no shape to know what they want. By this, one of the few reasonable feminist standards, this woman is a rapist, Ms Foundation seems to be supportive of rape, and David Futrelle is a rape apologist.

Full transcript of the rapist’s confession here, where it is described as a “Powerful Speech About Confidence” Yes, confidence that if you are a rapist who is also a woman the sisterhood will simply look the other way.

 

Oh, the horror of it all…

Oh, the horror of it all… published on

Funnily enough, I wasn’t going to bother writing about this one as I had already had my five cents at the “men’s rights” subreddit but they removed the post for “being stupid” so I had to bring it here. I really don’t know what’s up with those schmucks. Either there is a personal grudge against myself or swines in general or they are just dumbasses. Think about it. My submission gets removed because it doesn’t see a slap on the ass as sexual assault, while this submission in which some morons approve of a judge who gave a confessed rapist a lenient sentence remains in place. Curious.

Anyway, this one isn’t quite as egregious as complaints about wrist size or statues but it’s still good for the kind of laugh to be expected from the Guardian of Female Privilege. While (presumably) rending her garments and gnashing her teeth, some hysterical woman at the aforementioned rag screeches that last Saturday she was sexually assaulted while on her bike.

Seems that while she was basking in the glory of some pointless achievement like having biked up a hill or something, some dickhead comes along and commits against this poor woman what is no doubt the most hideous sexual assault in the history of sexual assaults. Sensitive chap that I am I can barely bring myself to write this, but he…he…oh, god…he… he slapped her on the ass! Oh, the horror! The sheer, unspeakable horror of it all!

Anyway, there is no doubt that he shouldn’t have done what he done, and he should probably be charged with putting her at risk of falling off her bike and further damaging her brain. But sexual assault? The kind that left her “totally humiliated” and even crying? Rubbish. Only by the broadest and most feminist of definitions is this a sexual assault, even if the law itself has, in some jurisdictions, adopted the feminist definition. As for the level of distress shown at the “sexual” aspect of this incident, is this woman exaggerating or is she just the world’s most easily traumatized woman? I hope to hell she isn’t on Twitter, the poor cow will end up with a bad case of PTSD! Now, is this woman a feminist? Or just a wimp? I suspect it is the former…

“Who are these people who think it’s fun to degrade a woman as she rides her bike? Do they get a sexual thrill from their leather glove whacking a Lycra-clad backside? Or is it just about asserting power? I bet the bikers had a right old laugh about it when they stopped at the pub for lunch, the odious morons.”

Yes, pretty much a feminist interpretation of the events. Degrading women. Asserting power – she might as well have screamed misogyny. Notice also the way that she supposes that the other bikers would side with the perpetrator. Well, of course they would – that’s just the way the menz is. It probably doesn’t even cross her mind that they may have told him, “Mate, that was fucking stupid! She could have fallen off and been hurt!” No, boys will be boys. Right, madam?

And this horrible event didn’t blow over either. A couple of days later she was “still fuming” and went to the cops! She refers to the perp as a pervert, so I can only assume that what she is still upset about is the “sexual” aspect, not the fact that she could have broken some bones. That’s what she should be doing – complaining about the danger involved, not spreading a definition of sexual assault so broad that half the men ( and probably a quarter of the women) in the world would be in jail if she had her way. Probably doesn’t hurt that the entire article feeds into the ongoing tactic of portraying women as delicate victims upon whom should be heaped ever-growing amounts of privilege. But then, what can we expect from a woman who admits to being part of a women’s-only bike club?

Primary Sidebar

Secondary Sidebar