Nelson Mandela, RIP

For more proof that bigotries flock together, let’s take a look at some tweets the always despicable Matt Forney made today after learning of the death of Nelson Mandela:

My Christmas wish came true! Nelson Mandela is dead! I BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS! #burninhell #communistshitstain—
Matthew Forney (@realmattforney) December 05, 2013

I'm going to start posting statistical evidence of how Nelson Mandela destroyed South Africa. Any neoreactionary Tweeps wanna join in?—
Matthew Forney (@realmattforney) December 05, 2013

His “statistical evidence” of an alleged “white genocide” in South Africa? A page that links to a curious document full of unsourced claims and hysterical language, and which refers to South Africa’s former apartheid system as “so-called apartheid.” (It’s a pdf; TRIGGER WARNING for gruesome pictures of murder victims.)

Here’s a piece from Africa Check debunking similar claims of a “white genocide” in South Africa.

Forney’s “statistical evidence” that life was better for everyone under apartheid comes from a publication called “The New Observer.” To get an idea of what sort of publication this is, here are some of the top stories on the site at the moment:

• Liberals Aghast as US’s “25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods” All Happen to be Black
• The Extermination of Whites in Europe: “We Are the Last 3 German Children in Our School.”
• If White Americans Don’t Start Having Babies Now, the US Will Vanish by 2100

Here’s another Africa Check piece that takes on widely disseminated Facebook post that also claims things were better under apartheid.

Forney’s “statistical evidence” that “[u]nder Nelson Mandela and his successors, South Africa became the rape capital of the world” is a link to an article in World Net Daily about a single serial rapist in South Africa. There are no statistics in it.

While it’s a bit ironic to see Forney — an admitted girlfriend-abuser who once wrote that “[w]omen should be terrorized by their men [because] it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps” — grandstanding about violence against women, it’s actually rather hard to track down reliable statistics about rape in South Africa, much less statistics about rape during apartheid, because back then the white authorities didn’t exactly give a shit about black victims of rape.

Many of those who’ve studied the culture of rape in South Africa argue that the country’s history of apartheid made the problem far, far worse, engendering “an exaggerated culture of aggression and male dominance, among both black and white,” as one researcher has argued.

My favorite tweet of the bunch, though, is this one:

Fact: Nelson Mandela had almost nothing to do with ending apartheid, because he was in jail. He stole the credit from Tutu and de Klerk.—
Matthew Forney (@realmattforney) December 05, 2013

Yeah. Screw Anne Frank, too. All she did was sit around in that dumb attic.

Here’s “Free Nelson Mandela,” by the Special AKA. When it came out, I never believed it would ever come true.

RIP.

EDITED TO ADD:  Thanks to @HamSushi on Twitter for pointing me to Forney’s lovely tweets!

Apparently some of the folks at A Voice for Men are afraid that, amidst all the eulogies for one of the greatest freedom fighters of our age, people may lose sight of the fact that Nelson Mandela was, in fact, a man. Not a man in the fallible human being sense, as he was and all of us are, but a man in the not a lady sense.

So AVFM Managing Editor Dean Esmay felt it necessary to remind the world of this fact:

The Horseless Hun decided to rub it in a bit:

Kukla, meanwhile, wasn’t all that impressed.

This, again, is a site that thinks of itself as the locus of the “Men’s Human Rights Movement.” It’s  also a place where the death of a real human rights icon becomes just another excuse to talk shit about women.

A shipment of white babies.

So one of the regulars on Reddit’s The Red Pill subreddit — the “TRP Endorsed” contributor who calls himself IllimitableMan — has worked himself into a lather about the coming Whitepocalypse. You know, the impending collapse of civilization that Mr. Man and assorted other racist asshats  fear will come about as a result of white women refusing to pop out the required number of white babies to keep it alive. Sorry, due to white women refusing to “shit out” the required number of white babies. (Mr. Man is quite the defender of family values.)

It pretty much goes without saying that IllimitableMan blames feminism for it all. In fact, over the course of his rambling, repetitive, and rage-fuelled 2,000 word rant he manages to blame feminism for the impending death of the white race roughly half a dozen different times.

Here’s perhaps the most coherent statement of his thesis:

Feminism has infected western civilization, which means by merit of these societies being predominantly white Caucasian, has harmed this ethnicity the most on a global level, reducing its birth rates the most significantly and affecting its various European and anglo speaking cultures the most adversely. …

What we can conclude is that castrating men by raising them to be effeminate whilst simultaneously allowing women too much freedom and self-determination and polluting said women to view men as adversaries leads to a drop in the birth-rate so deep that a society becomes unsustainable, leading to its inevitable collapse.

So why are white women less interested in popping out babies these days? Blame that Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel.

A fundamental criticism of feminism is it taught women to take on masculine traits, to provide, to work hard, it demonised the sanctity of motherhood, it taught women to value career and the self (an overlap with individualism there) over motherhood and family, 21-year-old White Caucasian girls no longer give any fucks about being a mother and a wife like they did in the 50′s and 60′s, no now they’re thinking about jumping on as much cock as possible, getting a degree, going on holidays … and generally fulfilling the sexual and materialistic elements of their hypergamy. Family and reproduction takes a back-seat.

Ah, good old “hypergamy.” I would just like to take a moment to point out that the word hypergamy actually means “the action of marrying a person of a superior caste or class.” Red Pillers and Men’s Rights Activists have so distorted the basic concept that Mr. Man here can use it to mean “fucking lots of dudes who aren’t me, providing for themselves and NOT getting married to anyone” without blinking an eye.

Mr. Man continues:

Society facilitates this as any imposition of responsibility or standards placed on a woman is rationalised away as simple “oppression” some psychological misogyny cards are played and voila, Miss Jane average can diffuse all her responsibilities and continue to live as a completely obnoxious and self-entitled bitch giving no fucks in the world about settling down until her beauty privilege fucks off around the age of 30 aka “she’s hitting the wall.” Whilst she was fucking around in her twenties, the average immigrant woman has already had a couple of kids and they’re attending school now.

Damn you white ladies, for neglecting your duty to the white race and refusing to get married until you’re ugly crones in your (gasp) thirties!

And so, while white birthrates decline, European countries have opened their borders to not-white people who show up and eat not-white food and wear not-white clothes and make a lot of not-white babies. Mr. Man, who is apparently British, notes:

[A]n American friend came to London once and stated “IllimitableMan there are no fucking English people this looks like Pakistan” Yes, I did just throw anecdotal evidence in there, this is a blog – not a fucking thesis and I’m starting to taste prozac in my mouth after the incessantly negative tone this piece carries, of course many of you know as such that the pill can be a bitter bitch.

I felt compelled to look up the actual demographics of London, and found that roughly 60% of London’s population is white — which is what I assume Mr. Man’s friend meant by “English people” — and the vast majority of them are of British origin. Roughly 3 percent are Pakistani, another 3 percent are Bangladeshi, and not-quite 7 percent are Indian.

It’s kind of amazing the effect that bigotry can have on someone’s perception of reality, huh?

Like some other Red Pillers and white supremacists out there, Mr. Man looks to that beacon of hope and freedom in our world — Russia — for the possible salvation of the dying white race.

As usual, like with feminism, Russia seems to be one of the few countries making a stand against egalitarian bullshit and seeing the world for what it truly is, a ruthless and uncaring place, I guess being an inherently “red pill country” and opting to reject the babble of cacophonous radical leftist ideologies has had it benefits for the Ruski people.

The funny thing about Mr. Man’s rant is that many of the basic demographic trends he cites are, in fact, real. White birthrates have fallen, and as he points out, in the US more whites are dying than are being born — though somehow he’s missed the news that the birthrates of immigrants to the US have fallen even faster, with the birthrates of Mexican immigrants falling nearly 4 times faster than that of native-born Americans between 2007 and 2010.

Women have entered the workplace in larger numbers and are waiting longer to marry (as are men). Feminism has something to do with all these changes, but so do changes in birth control technology, in education and in the economy.

So what? The real problem with Mr. Man’s rants is that, for assorted racist and misogynistic reasons, he thinks all this is bad. Europe and the US are becoming more multicultural? Cool. That makes the world a more interesting place. Birth rates are falling, not only for whites but for other ethnic groups? Cool. This planet has already got more people than it can handle, and lower birth rates may be critical if we have any hope of staving off a total environmental collapse.

I’m always a bit perplexed by Red Pillers and pickup artists ranting about how women (whether white women or women in general) need to settle down and get married and start popping out babies because that’s their duty as women. It’s not like Red Pill dudes seem particularly interested in marrying these women and raising these babies with them.

Once again, it seems to come back to the issue of control: they’re angry at women for actually living independent existences in their twenties and — oh my gosh! — sometimes even their thirties or later, and “you’re betraying your race” (whether that race is the white “race” or the human race) is just a convenient excuse to bash women who are not so much “out of control” as out of their control.

Lorde: Harbinger of doom?

So over on The Spearhead, the fellas are discussing pop star and self-professed feminist Lorde — no, really — and, well, I have some bad news for you all. Apparently we’re about to be taken over by Barbarian tribes. No, really — again. Blame Lorde, Lena Dunham, Lady Gaga, and of course Sex & the City. Among others.

According to a comment-cum-manifesto from The Other Jim, which won itself a couple of dozen upvotes from The Spearhead’s highly civilized readers, Lorde’s feminism

is merely symptomatic of the fact that we live in what can only be called, ‘The Fem-Centric Reality” … Where the culture of the West caters to female desires. Thus, it’s why we see movies, tv, books, music, etc. targeting women(with the govt. legally and economically empowering women eg Title IX, Lilly Ledbetter, etc.), but more importantly appealing to their innermost desires.

It’s why we’ve seen the popularity of such things like ‘Sex & the City’, ’50 Shades of Grey’, ‘Rom-Com’ movies and shows, ‘Girls’, ‘Dancing With the Stars’, ‘The Bachelor/ette’, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, ‘Grrll-Power’ Heroines like Jennifer Lawrence in the ‘Hunger Games’, ABC News, the ‘War on Women’, etc. All of it catering to the fleeting whims and desires of women. Thus, we all live in ‘Chick-World’. *

So, the ‘Fem-Centric Reality’ is the dominant cultural force in the West right now. Of course, it won’t last, nothing ever does, but the price it will exact from Western Civilization will likely help in usher in a cultural, if not civilizational collapse as the Barbarian tribes surrounding the West see the weakness the Fem-Centric Reality engenders and are patiently waiting to take over a weaker civilization.

So there’s that.

Jim ends with this, well, intriguing theory about trans women:

* It’s also why we’re seeing more MTF transsexuals in the public eye, IMO due to a form of Stockholm Syndrome whereby some men aren’t merely sympathizing with the hostage takers(women & the FemCentric Reality), they’re trying to become the hostage takers(women) and be at the center of the FemCentric Reality where the benefits are quite generous.

Fellas: just make sure to get your transition in before the barbarians take over, if you want to enjoy the lady benefits while you still can!

Martin Luther King after being hit by a rock during a demonstration in Chicago, 1966

Today is Martin Luther King day here in the United States. In remembering Dr. King’s legacy, alas, his story is sometimes reduced to a few simplistic soundbites, and we forget how much of a struggle his famous struggle really was.

The one thing no one seems to want to remember is how much opposition there was to King and his message, and how ugly and violent and hateful this opposition was.

King and his family faced real threats and real harassment on a daily basis. He was subject to real violence, yet continued to preach a message of nonviolence.

As a reminder of the courage it took to be Martin Luther King, here’s an account of a march he led in Chicago in 1966, taken from Rick Perlstein’s book Nixonland. (Content warning: Racist language, violence.)

August 5. Six hundred open-housing activists, ten thousand counterdemonstrators. Some wore Nazi helmets. Others waved Confederate battle flags, carried George Wallace banners, swastika placards that helpfully explained THE SYMBOL OF WHITE POWER.

Martin Luther King, Mahalia Jackson by his side, led his legions forth: “We are bound for the promised land!”

“Kill those niggers!”

“We want Martin Luther Coon!”

Police trying to keep the two sides apart were screamed at: “Nigger-loving cops!” “God, I hate niggers and nigger-lovers,” a reporter overheard an old lady say.

Martin Luther King walked past.

“Kill him! Kill him!”

“Roses are red, violets are black, King would look good with a knife in his back.”

Instead he got a baseball-size rock above his ear. He slumped to the ground—the Gandhian moment of truth. … King got up and kept on marching. We shall overcome.

The racist mob continued to pelt the demonstrators with rocks and bottles, many of them aimed at King. Some 30 others were injured.

Why did King put himself at such risk? “I have to do this–to expose myself–to bring this hate into the open,” he later explained.

He also, as a result of his activism in Chicago, got local real estate agents to agree to abide by the city’s fair housing ordinance. Not a dramatic concession, but a meaningful one, and one that illustrated the kind of everyday discrimination that blacks faced in America.

This is what a real civil rights hero looks like.

EDIT: Here’s some footage of one of King’s marches in Chicago, and a Chicago Tribune video about King’s Chicago activism. The footage here is supposedly of King’s march in Gage Park; the march described above took place in Marquette Park, where he got an even more hostile reception.

Mugshots of Freedom Riders arrested for protesting segregation. The Freedom Riders were often attacked by white mobs, with the complicity of the police. Click on image for more info, and more pictures.

On Monday, Martin Luther King Day here in the United States, this was posted in the Men’s Rights subreddit, where, as you can see, it was quite popular with the assembled Men’s Rightsers:

How wrong  is this? Let me count the ways.

1) It’s wrong because Men’s Rights “Activists” aren’t “warriors for peace,” or justice, or even for their own backwards notions of men’s rights. MRAs, like a lot of men insecure about their own worth, love to claim credit for the accomplishments of great men in the past (without accepting any responsibility for the terrible deeds of the terrible men who lived before them).

But even in terms of claiming credit where no credit is due this is especially ridiculous. Aside from a tiny handful of “fathers rights activists,” who’ve bizarrely chosen to try to advance their cause by vandalizing paintings and/or dressing up in superhero costumes and climbing up buildings, and one troubled man who killed himself in hopes that his death would spur other MRAs to acts of terrorism directed at courthouses and police stations, MRAs don’t risk anything with their “activism,” insofar as they engage in anything that can be called activism at all.

There’s nothing heroic, or risky, about posting anonymous rants online about how women are all a bunch of hypergamous bitches, or sending some vague threat to the feminist villain of the day.

Indeed, MRAs face so little risk that some are forced to invent stories of persecution — like John Hembling’s tall tale of being confronted by a mob of boxcutter-wielding feminists, thoroughly discredited by The Daily Beast — in order to cast themselves in the role of the persecuted victim-turned-hero.

2) It’s wrong because the person posting this message, and attempting to suggest some sort of link between the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King and the Men’s Rights movement today, is someone who also posts in the White Rights subreddit, a haven for the same sort of hateful white supremacists who hurled racial epithets — not to mention actual rocks and bottles — at King when he was alive.

When one Redditor pointed this out, and noted (correctly) that numerous white nationalists post in the Men’s Rights subreddit, they were quickly downvoted for their troubles.

The original poster explained that he only posted in White Rights about “real cases of white discrimination.”

Another poster offered an example of what he saw as one such case of “real” anti-white discrimination:

Yeah, that was totally a real thing.

3) It’s wrong because it’s wrong. As in, factually incorrect. Warren Farrell is talking out of his ass, again. Here’s a slightly longer version of his quote, which you can find on his web page. (It’s originally from The Myth of Male Power.)

Men are likely to be not only the warriors of war but also the warriors of peace. Almost all those who risk their lives, are put in jail, or are killed for peace are men. While some of the peace warriors—Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Dag Hammarskjold—are remembered, most are forgotten. Remember Norm Morrison?

Well, no, Warren, I don’t remember Norm Morrison. But I think you’re forgetting a few people too. Like half of the human race.

Women have been involved in peace and social justice movements as long as women have been active in the public sphere. Ever hear of Women Strike for Peace? Code Pink? At every large demonstration I’ve been at that has involved civil disobedience, I’ve seen both men and women arrested, with some of the women old enough to be grandmothers or great-grandmothers. The idea that women don’t put themselves on the line for peace or social justice is patently false.

This is really kind of  basic stuff. But with MRAs, alas, you always need to go back to the basics.

But the post in the Men’s Rights subreddit was all about co-opting the civil rights movement, so today I thought I would remind anyone who might have forgotten — or who never knew — that it wasn’t just men who put themselves at risk in the struggle for civil rights.

You can click on the pictures for more information.

Protesters at a lunch counter sit-in at Woolworths in Jackson, Mississippi, 1963, under assault from a white mob. The protesters were beaten, kicked, and burned with cigarettes. The assault lasted three hours, while police stood by.

Freedom Riders, after their bus was attacked and set aflame by a white supremacist mob near Anniston, Alabama, 1961

Student civil rights protesters blasted with water hose by authorities, Birmingham, Alabama, 1963

Birmingham, 1963

Elizabeth Eckford, who volunteered to be one of the first black students to enter the formerly all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, on the first day of school in 1957

Student arrested for trying to read a book in a “white only” library in Albany, Georgia, 1963.

Police arrest NAACP member Ruth Tinsley for protesting outside a Richmond, Virginia, department store, 1960

Rosa Parks, being fingerprinted after refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man, Montgomery, Alabama, 1955. I hope that Warren Farrell has at the very least heard of her.

Hideous short-haired monster Jean Seberg poses with adorable mouse.

Having previously taken on such dire threats to Western Civilization as “fat girls,” “manginas,” and “rape tourettes,” the pickup-artists-cum-worldly-philosophers over at Roosh Valizadeh’s Return of Kings blog have decided to take on an even more insidious danger: Women — sorry, girls — with short hair.

In an alarming expose, guest blogger Tuthmosis reveals the shocking tuth, er, truth:

No woman in all of human history has ever looked better with short hair than she would with a head full of healthy locks.

So why are so many women choosing to cut off the long hair that men so universally admire (allegedly)? Tuthmosis has a few theories. One is that other women are convincing them to do it so that they can have all the short-hair-hating men to themselves. Yep. It’s hair sabatoge!

Women are quick to encourage other women to cut their hair by telling them how “cute” it is. While I’m no scientist, I’m convinced this is some deep, genetic programming at work, one that forces women—who compete with one another on a physical level on a daily basis—to encourage any behavior that might eliminate competitors in the dating pool.

And straight men contribute to this sorry state of affairs, too. Well, “cowardly and deluded men” anyway, according to Tuthy — though why exactly being “cowardly and deluded” would cause men to encourage women to cut their hair is never quite explained.

Tuthy also blames gay men, who apparently have the power to sway the minds of women en masse.

The plaudits a Miley Cyrus, Rihanna, or Anne Hathaway receive when they cut their hair off—from people who have no business commenting on the attractiveness of women, like gay men—creates a copycat cycle that increases the trend geometrically.

So what exactly is the problem with short hair? Don’t get Tuthy started on that!

Seriously, don’t get him started, because what he says makes no fucking sense.

The truth of the matter is that long hair’s almost universally attractive to men, when they’re actually speaking honestly (without trying to appease women in the room). Furthermore, it’s a symbol of youth, femininity, and health. Why can’t old women grow long hair? Because it’s an ephemeral trait of your fertile years.

Really?

Women instinctively know this, which is why every American girl who cuts, and keeps, her hair short often does it for ulterior reasons. Short hair is a political statement.

A political statement of what? A political statement that she won’t put up with assholes like you?

And, invariably, a girl who has gone through with a short cut—and is pleased with the changes in her reception—is damaged in some significant way. Short hair is a near-guarantee that a girl will be more abrasive, more masculine, and more deranged.

Ah, ok. So it does mean that she won’t put up with assholes like you.

I’d developed that belief on years of platonic interactions alone. The bitchiest work colleagues, the most difficult cashier, the most confrontational, aggressive cunts in bars have all shared one trait—short-ass hair.

Yep, it definitely means that.

Tuthy then relates the horrors he faced during his own brief experiences dating women with short hair.

One had rape fantasies and used four-letter words! (These are your complaints? The guy who runs the blog you’re posting on is an actual admitted rapist, and you yourself just used the word “cunt.”)

Another used racial slurs and later got an unflattering “soccer mom” haircut! (Racial slurs? I mean, that’s a dealbreaker for me, but you’re writing for a blog that’s crawling with out-and-proud racists. Aren’t racial slurs right up your alley?)

Yet another jerked him off while texting! (You’re not going to at least give her credit for her manual dexterity?)

He concludes with this:

Not only is short-hair unattractive, it’s one of the biggest signals a man can get that a woman is damaged beyond repair.

In other words, short hair on women appears to repel a certain kind of asshole. Make use of that information as you wish.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh dear. Apparently Tuthy’s dumb post was so dumb and offensive it managed to “go viral”" and generate a ton of hate-traffic for Return of Kings. Roosh, naturally, has decided to try to fan the flames with a “publisher’s note” reiterating Tuthy’s, er, “argument” and helpfully revealing to his new readers what a shithead he is.

Here are some quotes, along with some photos to remind us just who it is who is lecturing women about their hairstyles.

Sadly, the women who are blasting us right now with vulgar speech and masculine manner are treading the line of self-mutilation with their pixie cuts. If you know a girl who has voluntarily chopped off such a reliable indicator of female beauty and fertility, nothing short of an intervention with all family and friends is necessary to force the victim to grow her hair back out.

 

I part now with a message of hope. Women: unless you have a smushed pig face, your attractiveness increases at least 6% for every inch your hair passes your shoulders. Don’t listen to people who are trying to sabotage your beauty by encouraging you to adopt a lesbian haircut.

 

 

We are the only ones who will be brutally honest with you. We are not shy to state where objective female beauty comes from, unlike the saboteurs in your life who are just trying to make it harder for you to find a good husband.

 

And for those of you especially sick women who think that you are going to punish us by cutting your hair, you’re only punishing yourself. Being lonely and having to settle for a brood of cats is not a good life for a woman, but that’s what will happen if you keep your hair short.

 

Gordon Lightfoot had nothing to do with any of this.

The Man Boobz Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending some bucks my way.

Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
So our old friend Heartiste, the reactionay PUA douchecanoe, is one of those racists who’s not only open about his racism, but actually proud of it; he thinks it’s backed up with SCIENCE. He’s become more obvious in his pandering to the so called “alt-right” racist crowd recently, but he’s sort of outdone himself in a recent post, playing to some rather primal racist fears of black male sexual potency.

In “The Wreck Of The Beta Male Cuckold,” Heartiste offers up a rather strained “parody” of Gordon Lightfoot’s “The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald.” Instead of chronicling a real-life shipwreck, he offers up the tale of a fat, emasculated beta brony who sadly watches his wife have sex with a black man — sorry, a “darkie” — before retreating to the basement to commit suicide.

At least I think that’s what happens. It’s all so ineptly written it’s nearly incomprehensible in parts.

Here’s the beginning of the poem, which will perhaps give you some flavor of the rest:

The legend lives on from the Left Coast on down
of the beta they called “Cuckold Freddie.”
The cuck, it is said, sits alone near the bed
when the thighs of his wife spread to darkies.

Yep. He really went with “darkies.” Elsewhere in the lyrics, Heartiste refers to the cuckolder as “mandingo,” and his penis as a “black mamba.”

Actually, let me quote that last bit, as it shows just how hard Heartiste has to strain to hit all the standard Manosphere talking points — and work in all his favorite manosphere catchphrases — in telling his tale of beta woe. Oh, by the way, the cuckolder refers to himself as “Bear.”

Cuckold suffering tolls, Hypergamy sings
in the rooms of Freddie’s Mountain Dew mansion.
Bear’s black mamba creams in his wife’s wet vajeen;
Her asshole and mouth are for Bear’s fun.
And farther below, Freddie’s marital ho
takes in what Bear’s privilege can send her,
And Freddie will know as all swinging alphas know
it’s two women-one man not the inverse.

The whole thing is like that.

Heartiste, I’m sure, thinks of his little song parody as a devastating put down of  (white) beta males, which he’s made even more humiliating by having the cuckolder in the story be a … black man!

But you don’t have to be a psychologist or a cultural historian to see the fear here.

White male panic over black male sexuality is hardly a new thing. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan and its supporters regularly used trumped-up fears of “black brutes” raping white women as convenient excuses for campaigns of terror against blacks; they also indicated a deep uneasiness within white men about their own cultural and sexual potency.

Similar fears of a sexualized “Black Peril” arose amongst colonialist whites in the 19th and early 20th century, most notably in South Africa and what was then called Southern Rhodesia; these, too, provided a convenient excuse for government policies designed to control blacks and benefit white men. (Never mind that white men were far more likely to sexually abuse black women than black men were to abuse white women.)

In other words, there’s very little difference these days between a certain segment of the Manosphere and the Klan.

How comments are moderated at Man Boobz.

So I had to re-ban a couple of long-banned trolls today, who had returned with new names and slightly different IP addresses but who gave themselves away with their behavior. And that got me thinking about the people — well, the MRAs and PUAs and other such charming folks — who regularly denounce me as an evil censor of FREE SPEECH.

In fact, when I ban people, I do so for good reasons: one of the two trolls I banned today was a longtime MRAish commenter here who eventually creeped everyone out by boasting about having sex with underage prostitutes; the other was a man of many sockpuppets known for angry, abusive meltdowns full of slurs.

Anyway, so I thought I’d give you all a glimpse into my “trash” folder. Here’s a sampling of comments from would-be first time commenters at Man Boobz that I felt would not add anything to the discourse here. But in the interests of FREE SPEECH I thought I’d give these “ideas” an airing today.

TRIGGER WARNING for violent and offensive language. (Sorry about the quality of the last two; you can click on them to see larger versions.)

Not all of the comments I trash are quite this awful. Some are only mildly violent or abusive. I tend to be a bit picky with people’s first comments, assuming that if someone posts a shitty first comment it’s not likely to get any better after that. There are a few banned commenters who stop by and try to post anyway, including one fellow who leaves endless comments trying to prove, as far as I can tell, that teenage girls are objectively hotter than women in their twenties and older.

And, of course, there are comments targeting individual women, whether these are giant cut-and-pasted rants about Anita Sarkeesian, vaguely threatening remarks aimed at other well-known internet feminists, or bizarre sexual comments about female MRAs from fans of theirs.

Once in a while I will get a comment from a feminist that resorts to violent language; I don’t let those comments through either.

And then there are the pictures people try to post in the comments. Below, one of the ones I actually let through, depicting me in a dress with some extremely tall dude. A quick Google image search reveals that it was originally posted online by regular A Voice for Men contributor Janet Bloomfield, in a blog post of hers from last year on Disney princesses. Stay classy, Men’s “Human Rights” Movement!

I don’t actually own a dress like this.

Anyway, the pictures I don’t let through are worse.

Hey ladies! Dean Esmay reaches out to the young women of America

Not that long ago, an 18-year-old student named Carly, appalled by the rampant misogyny on display at A Voice for Men, sent a critical but thoughtful email to a number of the men associated with the site challenging them to rise above their hatred of women.

AVFM “Managing Editor” Dean Esmay decided to take her email as an opportunity to reach out to all the Carlys out there in the world in an attempt to win them over to AVFM’s peculiar brand of “human rights activism,” penning what he called an

open letter … not just to you, but to any young woman who has an open mind and is willing to be challenged on her prejudices.

Naturally, given that Men’s Rights Activists are some of the most verbose douchebags in history, it was long as hell — some 3000 words. But Esmay’s diplomatically worded attempt at outreach didn’t go quite as well as he might have hoped. Carly responded with a note saying that his open letter had merely

reinforced everything I believe. It seems we are at a stalemate, you will never agree with me, and I will never agree with you.

So where might poor Dean Esmay might have gone wrong in his attempt to win Carly’s heart and mind?

Let’s start here, with 5 Arguments Least Likely To Convince A Young Woman That A Voice for Men Isn’t a Woman-Hating Piece of Shit Hate Site, in the form of direct quotes from The Esmay himself. Since Esmay is so long-winded, I’ve highlighted some of my favorite bits in bold.

1)“[Y]ou’re 18, and so, not to put too fine a point on it, you are still a young skull full of mush.”

2) “[M]en have few to no voices speaking about issues that are specific to men, or defending men as a group, in this society. Until very recently in history men never have had such a voice. Because pretty much all civilizations for the last few thousand years have prioritized the needs and desires of women over those of men. For hundreds, even thousands, of years.

3)“If you believe men have silenced women for thousands of years … you believe something that just not true. … Furthermore, if you believe that, what you have to believe is that Asian men have been oppressing Asian women for thousands of years, black men have been oppressing black women for thousands of years, European men, Australasian men, and so on, have all been oppressing their women for thousands of years. And those weak women could do nothing about it. So what you believe here isn’t just wrong, it’s racist.”

4) “For most of history, being female was a privilege. It carried certain special rights that only applied to women, and special responsibilities that only applied to women, and through most of history, being male was a burden, a burden which carried certain rights that only applied to men, and those rights were there mostly so they could discharge their duties to women properly.”

5) “[Y]ou may occasionally see angry remarks or articles on this site. What I would hope you would do with that, when you do see it, is contemplate that there is a difference between righteous anger at real injustice, and what you seem to have misinterpreted as hate.”

The funniest thing about Esmay’s “open letter” is that this bizarre crackpottery, easily seen through by anyone with any knowledge of history or sociology or, hell, the real world,  is his attempt to sound as reasonable as possible. He’s reined in the wild conspiratorial ranting he often indulges in when arguing with ideological foes; he’s avoided the misogynistic slurs (cunt, bitch, whore) favored by other AVFMers like Paul Elam and Diana Davison. And this is the best he can manage.

The Men’s “Human Rights” Movement isn’t ready for its close-up. And I suspect that it never will be.

EDITED TO ADD: A commenter has pointed out another quote I should have included as well. So here is BONUS EXTRA LEAST CONVINCING DEAN ESMAY ARGUMENT NUMBER SIX:

6) “The truth is, the most privileged class of people in the whole wide world are young women living in places like the US, UK, Canada, etc.–and if you want to be treated like an equal, you should not flinch or cry like a little girl if someone tells you that.“

How dare you accuse us of sexism, you spoiled little girl!

Roosh, either in custody in Poland or posing in a jail cell for some publicity stunt. Photo from Roosh V Forum

UPDATE: Increasingly implausible posts from Tuthmosis, the source of all the “information” about Roosh’s alleged arrest, make it pretty clear this was a hoax.

UPDATE 2: And Roosh has officially admitted it:

Tuthmosis and I conspired to prank the internet that I was in jail. The picture used is from the German DDR museum. …

I expect many of you to be annoyed, and I hope Tuth and I didn’t betray your trust with the prank, but the security and viability of the forum was never compromised and the picture was just too good not to use. Credit goes to Tuth for his “new rules” (http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33639-…#pid667804 ), which—if you were in on the joke—was quite amusing. I also did not expect the story to be as believed as it was, since there are many flaws in the picture that suggest it’s not a real jail cell, but on the other hand, the prospect of me going to jail is not unexpected. If you are pissed off, I recommend you read Tuth’s bulletins to see the humor in the prank (the “bill me later” option was my favorite).

I do sincerely appreciate the thoughts of concern of my Polish imprisonment. Now of course I really will be jailed and no one will believe it because of this false jailing accusation. In case of a real “involuntary absence” from the forum, I trust Tuth to continue moderation efforts. For many years he has selflessly helped me maintain the community we have and not actually gone mad with power.

On a positive note, we managed to troll the tub of estrogen Manboobz and his readers.

Interesting that the people who fell the hardest for his hoax were his own fans. Also, I’m not sure that me posting something that essentially said “here’s something that looks a bit fishy that’s being reported by someone who may well be lying” really counts as “being trolled.”

ORIGINAL POST:

Before I go into any details here I want to say that all of this is coming from Roosh’s forum and hasn’t been confirmed in any way. So treat it with however much skepticism you deem appropriate. For all I know this could be some bizarre publicity stunt to promote Roosh’s blog and his reprehensible Return of Kings website.

But according to Roosh’s pal “Tuthmosis,” who says he is getting his info from a friend of Roosh in Poland, Roosh has been arrested after some sort of violent “confrontation.” Here’s his description of what allegedly happened:

• Roosh had a violent “confrontation” in Poland

• He was apprehended by Polish authorities

• He’s being (or already has been) charged with some sort of crime and being held in jail

In a followup comment he offered additional details about the alleged incident:

• Confrontation was with Paul/Andre, his gypsy stalker

• Didn’t start violent, but escalated quickly

• Witnesses pointed to Roosh

• There were “serious injuries”

• Roosh is definitely being charged with something

In response to some skeptics who suggested this might all be a hoax, he wrote:

I too was hopeful this was some sort of joke–even if it meant me having egg on my face–but I just got a message from a second source. This is a guy who does back-end work for ROK and I’ve personally met, so I have no reason to doubt him.

Roosh is definitely being charged with a (serious) crime. The gypsy apparently took a nasty beating. What’s more, witnesses (who may be acquaintances of the gypsy) claim that Roosh was speaking epithets at him and may have used an object to strike him. I don’t know what the Polish laws are, but these circumstances apparently add to the severity of the crime. I got a couple of calls out to see what his legal prospects are, but the language barriers and time difference are making information hard to come by.

Naturally, Roosh’s fans being a bunch of racist assholes, the alleged ethnicity of Roosh’s alleged stalker led to some lovely generalizations about “gypsies” and this comment, from “Walter White,” who suggested that anti-”gypsy” bigotry might just get Roosh off the hook:

Scary stuff. I’ve travelled extensively in the region, and gypsies aren’t well thought of in Eastern Europe. Sounds terrible, but that’s the way it is. I guess an analogy for Americans would be like if a white dude got into a fight with a black guy in the 1940′s in the South. As wrong as it may be, the white guy would be given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Roosh will get the benefit of that with regard to a fight with a gypsy. Then again, he’s not a Pole – so he’s not gonna get much “home team” advantage.

I guess we’ll see, huh?

That is, assuming this isn’t all a publicity stunt.

Odd that Roosh appears to have emerged apparently unscathed from such an allegedly violent confrontation. His hair isn’t even mussed up.

Dr. Thaddeus Pixel, Inventor of Science. (Detail of poster from Chateau Heartiste)

So the other day some of the fellas over on Chateau Heartiste — one of the internet’s top destinations for racist, misogynist pickup artist wannabes — ran across a little graphic celebrating some of the lesser-known “[w]omen in science that you should know … and probably don’t.”

Apparently offended by the reminder that, yes, women have actually had some influence over history, one of Heartiste’s readers decided to make a graphic similarly celebrating the men of science. But while the original graphic contained pictures of only 12 women, this new graphic featured a vast sea of male faces, as if to rub in just how male dominated the world of science has been, and still is.

Looking at the graphic, Heartiste also thought he spotted another demographic anomaly: a preponderance of white faces. “That’s one pale looking pastiche,” he wrote.

“The Men in Science poster. A Snowvalanche of Whiteness,” agreed one of his commenters,”Bwahahaha.”

Huh. That’s weird. because when I look at the poster I don’t see a lot of white. I mean, if you blow it up a little you can see that the spaces between the various squares are white, but the squares themselves are all sorts of colors. Red. Pink. Black. Brown. Blue. Green.

Are a significant portion of the Men of Science from Mars?

And there’s another odd thing about this not-so-pale pastiche: it’s full of repeating patterns. If you look closely, you’ll discover that this isn’t one vast sea of male faces. It’s a small pond, endlessly repeated.

Specifically, it’s this bit (from the upper left-hand corner) pasted over and over.

Also, when you look closely at these alleged “scientists” they turn out to be real blockheads. Yep, if you zoom in a little further you don’t find an assortment of tiny Einsteins and fig-sized Newtons. You get this:

All hail the founding pixels of science!

Heartiste, you may want to get your eyes checked for bigotry.

Thanks to dashapants for bringing this wondrous graphic and its repeating patterns to my attention.

Misogynists also like to remain anonymous when they make terrible jokes

Time for a little quiz!

Who posted comments online in which he (or she) declared that:

“Sluts are just whores in training.”

“Women look at 2 bulges on a man, one in the front of the pants or second one in the back pocket. Whichever one is bigger, they can do without the other.”

“What’s the most used line in Arkansas: daddy get off me you are crushing my cigarettes.”

Female college students are “sororostutes.”

Women expect special treatment because of their “golden vajay jays”

Khloe Kardashian is “black by injection.”

Your choices are:

Oprah

Paul Elam

Redditor “NaggerPlease”

Arkansas Circuit Judge Mike Maggio

So who was it? Let’s work through the alternatives. Unsurprisingly, it’s not Oprah; while she has referred to “vajay jays” she has not, as far as I know, referred specifically to golden ones, and the rest of the comments really don’t match her views at all.

Perhaps a little surprisingly, it’s not Paul Elam either, though he has many terrible opinions about sluts and whores.

NaggerPlease, meanwhile, is just a name I made up because it seems like the sort of “edgy” borderline-racist name some dude on Reddit would come up with. It turns out there actually is a NaggerPlease on Reddit, though they haven’t posted anything.

So, yep, the correct answer is actually Arkansas Circuit Judge Mike Maggio, who was recently outed as a regular commenter on a Louisiana State University fan message board called Tiger Droppings.  Say hello, Mike!

Arkansas Judge Mike Maggio: An oddly cheerful cauldron of hate

Using the name “geauxjudge,” Maggio posted what seems to have been an endless stream of racist, misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise offensive comments on the board — many of them worse than the small sampling I’ve posted above. He also revealed confidential (alleged) details of an adoption hearing involving actress Charlize Theron. (For more of the comments and the gory details, see here and here.)

He’s now under investigation for all of this; revealing the alleged details of the Theron case were apparently quite a serious ethical violation.

In the wake of the outing, Maggio has withdrawn from a race for appellate judge and has offered up a rather impressively half-assed apology for his terrible comments:

I take full responsibility for the comments that have been attributed to me.

That’s a weirdly indirect way to admit you wrote the comments.

I apologize deeply for my lapse in personal judgment and for that, I have no excuse. The comments posted were not acceptable.

Well, it was a bit more than a lapse. It was lapse after lapse after lapse after lapse. But at least this sounds like an apology.

These comments are not a reflection of who I am.

Uh, how are the comments you just took “full resposibility for” not a reflection of you? Who are they a reflection of? Not-Me, the naughty ghost from The Family Circus?

During my life, I have prided myself in treating all fairly and with respect, both personally and professionally. … I ask for both yours and God’s forgiveness.

… for the “lapse” that isn’t really a reflection of who you are.

My actions are not indicative or illustrative of the conservative political philosophy of which I hold dear.

Huh. Then why does so much of it line up so precisely with the anti-woman, anti-gay and racist dogwhistle rhetoric of the far right today?

It is a shame that the politics of personal destruction take precedence along with the win at all costs mentality that results in the disjunction.

Uh, are you really using your alleged APOLOGY for your bigoted statements to attack the people who pointed out your bigotry? Do you not understand the concept of an apology?

At this time, in light of the pain I have caused to my family, friends, supporters, the Judicial Branch, and the public, I have requested that the Secretary of State remove me from the ballot.

I would ask you to respect my family’s need for privacy so we can being the healing process of forgiveness.

I think in order to merit forgiveness you have to actually stop being an asshole. Or at least make an effort in that direction.

Men’s Rights activists often complain that they are locked out of the political system in “gynocratic” America. But here is a gentleman who seems to share 90% of their ideology and who, pending the result of an investigation of his comments, is actually in a position of some real power within the system.

And like most MRAs I’ve ever dealt with, he takes no real responsibility for his shit when he gets called on it.

Embrace Mike Maggio, MRAs. He’s your poster boy. He’s you.

Note: Thanks to Pecunium for pointing me to this story.

Don’t let anyone see you checking your notes!

So our dear friend Heartiste, the white-supremacist woman-botherer, has assembled a little “Chateau Heartiste Crib Sheet of Game,” a compilation of some of his best pickup advice, boiled down to a few handy tips and clever one-liners that wannabe alpha males can use on the ladies during conversation in order to get their ginas tingling. (Sorry, that’s the way these guys talk.)

Looking at Heartiste’s list of “lines” I was struck by how generic and, well, frankly unoriginal most of them were, from standard issue negs like “nice shoes. Those are really popular now” and “is she always like this?” to old-school PUA cliches like “I don’t buy girls drinks but you can buy me one” and  “what else do you have going for you besides your looks?” both of which come straight from peacocking PUA pioneer Mystery, the guy with the fuzzy hat and the long-ago-cancelled VH1 show.

Indeed, a lot of Heartiste’s “lines” are as old and stale as he is:

Don’t get clingy

Miss me already?

Hey, hands off the merchandise

If i didn’t know any better i’d say you were trying to pick me up

So I thought I’d do Heartiste a little favor and write up some new lines for him and his fans that are both more original and a bit more honest. Next time you’re in “da club,” Heartiste, why don’t you try some of these out? Some of these I made up myself; some are taken, or adapted, from things you yourself wrote.

Hi, I spend most of my life on the internet trying to figure out how to manipulate drunk women half my age into bed.

People on the internet know me as Heartiste. No, not Fartiste. With an H. No, it’s not a joke. I thought it up myself.

I like to call black people “darkies.” No, not to their face. Anonymously, on the internet.

I’m an alluringly savvy man self-assuredly parrying the clit-hardened jousts of intrigued women.

Too much outbreeding decreases charitable kin-feeling and incentivizes a decadent ennui that severs the citizen’s sense of obligation to his nation and co-ethnics.

A gentlemanly selectiveness honed by years of experience and psychological nimbleness has proved adequate at filtering out women likely to lay like dead fish in my roiling sea of sperm.

If anyone can usurp the lawyercunt in cuntishness, it’s the Twittercunt.

The walls are closing in on the lords of lies and their feels army of emotabots.

Whether our ruling class knows it or they bumble along like drug addicts seeking the next pleasurable injection of power at any cost, their sex-swapping project will turn the West into matricentric, female forager Africa.

Every time we had sex over the following weeks, it ended with her tucking her knees under her chin naked on the bed to quietly cry into the wrapped bubble of her body.

The only bond that matters in a woman’s heart is the one you caulk in her cock vault.

The ruling elites despise whites, despise the concept of whiteness, and despise especially the idea that the territory and nation and culture from which they parasitically suck the lifeblood was created and sustained primarily by white men.

The id of the Like Me Generation is a furry suit wrapping a toddler.

Women should avoid trying to be funny altogether and stick to maximizing the return on their authentically valuable assets. That would be your tits, ass, face and pussy, in case you were wondering.

That last bit was pure Heartiste. (As were the previous ten.) Like the women of the world, I can’t hope to attain such pinnacles of wit.

King Leopold of Belgium brought the gift of death to ten million Africans

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, a dude named unkleman wants us all to remember the debt of gratitude we owe to the white men of the world:

This message went over pretty well with the overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly self-pitying and self-congratulatory and maybe just an eensy teensy weensy bit racist demo in the Men’s Rights subreddit. I guess it pays to know your audience!

Men’s Rights and White Supremacy: two … tastes that go together.

Thanks to the folks in the AgainstMensRights subreddit for pointing me to this lovely comment.

UPDATE: Apparently, Unkleman’s comment was meant as sarcasm. That is, while he seems to think that his version of history is accurate, he thinks that the notion that individual white people today deserve credit for things other white people did in the past is stupid.

Interestingly, when he pointed out that this was what he actually meant, he got downvoted below zero, a stark contrast to the reception his original comment got. Take a look:

Evidently, the Men’s Rightsers liked his comment much better when they thought he totally meant it.

Let’s take another visit to the CreepyPM subreddit, where innocent souls post screenshots of the perfectly horrendous private messages they’ve gotten, sometimes on dating sites, sometimes not.

In this case, the recipient is a young black woman on OkCupid, the sender a white man more than twenty years her senior and 13 years out of her specified age range. He decides that the best way to overcome this age gap is to … mansplain and whitesplain to her about the history of Planned Parenthood.

And then there is perhaps the most awkward segue in the history of internet dating.

In the screenshot below, he’s red, she’s blue.

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan!

According to the recipient — no screenshot, alas — he followed this up with a classic bit of passive-aggressive sex nagging:

Take a chance, Ms. Free Love.

SPOILER ALERT: She didn’t.

You can read the original thread in CreepyPMs here.

Strike up the band! Vox Day has been nominated for a Hugo!

So our old friend Vox Day – the proudly bigoted science fiction/fantasy writer and self-professed expert on all things “Alpha” – is in the news again. This time, it’s not for declaring most date rape imaginary or writing a racist diatribe against a fellow author. Nope! It’s because another of his literary efforts, a novelette entitled Opera Vita Aeterna, just got nominated for a Hugo award.

In other news, apparently it’s not that hard to get nominated for a Hugo if you have a coterie of hard-core fans who are perhaps still pissed that you got kicked out of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and you suggest on your blog beforehand that it would be cool if they voted to nominate you.

Anyway, there’s already plenty of discussion of the news amongst the science-fiction set, most of them understandably displeased that a racist, misogynistic, homophobic asshole got a nomination. Here’s a bit more about the racist attack on black fantasy writer NK Jemisin (and misuse of the SFWA Twitter account) that got him tossed from the organization. If you’ve never seen what he wrote about Jemisin,  I’ll just quote some of the more memorable passages again here, because, wow. I’ve bolded the best — that is, worst — bits:

It is not that I, and others, do not view [Jemisin] as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens), it is that we simply do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious historical reason that she is not… The laws [Stand Your Ground Laws] are not there to let whites “just shoot people like me, without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence”, those self-defense laws have been put in place to let whites defend their lives and their property from people, like her, who are half-savages engaged in attacking them.

If sales of his novels ever dry up, Vox could definitely get a job as a speechwriter for the KKK.

On Bibliodaze, Ceilidhann is blunt:

There’s only one way to deal with people like Day, who see themselves as above basic human decency, and that is to cut them out of the community like a tumour. Shun them, ignore them, no-platform the hell out of them. Our conventions, our fanzines, our anthologies, our community is not open to people whose racist arguments could have come straight from the mouths of slave-owners.

John Scalzi takes a more conciliatory stance, writing that

the Hugo rules don’t say that a racist, sexist, homophobic dipshit can’t be nominated for a Hugo — nor should they, because in that particular category at least, it’s about the work, not the person.

But he also goes on to note (hint hint, nudge nudge) that the ballot for the actual award includes a “No Award” option in each category, and that if enough people choose it,

it is possible to rank a nominated work below “No Award” if, after reading the work in question and giving it fair and serious consideration, you decide that it doesn’t deserve to be on the ballot and, say, that its presence on the ballot is basically a stunt by a bunch of nominators who were more interested in trolling the awards than anything else. Just a thing for you to keep in mind when voting time rolls around.

GeekFeminism makes the same observation, going on to note that in 1987, “No Award came in ahead of L. Ron Hubbard’s Black Genesis.”

If anyone is still trying to make up their mind about Mr. Day/Beale, here are some quotes from him taken from my previous posts about him here. I’ve bolded some of the most, er, contrarian bits. Click the titles for my original posts, which provide more context and links to the posts in which he said these things.

Women working is worse than rape:

The fact that women may wish to work and are very capable of working no more implies that they should always be encouraged to do so anymore than the fact that men may wish to rape and are very capable of raping means that they should always be encouraged to do so.  The ironic, but logically inescapable fact is that encouraging men to rape would be considerably less damaging to a society than encouraging women to enter the workforce en masse.  Widespread rape makes a society uncivilized.  Widespread female employment makes a society demographically unsustainable.  History demonstrates that incivility can be survived and surmounted.  Unsustainability, on the other hand, cannot.

The Taliban’s attempt to silence Malala Yousafzai was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable:

[I]n light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban’s attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable.

Acid attacks on women may be worth it if they discourage female independence:

[F]emale independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills. Using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability.

We should emulate Iran by throwing women out of much of higher education:

[T]he Iranian action [restricting many fields of education to men only] presents a potentially effective means of solving the hypergamy problem presently beginning to affect college-educated women in the West. Only one-third of women in college today can reasonably expect to marry a man who is as well-educated as they are. History and present marital trends indicate that most of the remaining two-thirds will not marry rather than marry down. So, by refusing to permit women to pursue higher education, Iran is ensuring that the genes of two-thirds of its most genetically gifted women will survive in its gene pool.

For the rest of my posts on Vox Day — including the one in which he explains that his orc and troll fighting game won’t have any women in it, because that wouldn’t be historically accurate — see here.

EDIT: Added links to first paragraph, reworked third paragraph and added links, removed a link that was problematic.

Cliven Bundy: Too black?

Well, I was wrong. I thought that Heartiste would be the first Manospherian to come to the defense of fallen Fox News hero Cliven Bundy. Nope. Turns out it was W. F. Price of The Spearhead, who blamed Bundy’s fall from grace not on his crude racism but on the fact that the white rancher with the guns and unpaid bills … talks too much like a black person.

No, really.

Here’s Price’s argument, such as it is:

What I find highly ironic about the recent condemnation of Cliven Bundy is that he is being pilloried for speaking more like black Americans than urban whites. Even his name would sound black if you made a slight change from “Cliven” to “Clayvon.”

Well, no. Bundy talks a lot more like, well, a cowboy-hat-wearing white rancher at war with the government than he does a “black American” – as if all “black Americans” talk alike.

And are you really arguing that his name “would sound black” if it were a different name?

Mr. Bundy’s American English is so archaic that he still uses “Negro” (also used more by blacks than whites) and says “they was able to” and “didn’t get no more.”

And this is supposed to be how “American blacks” all talk? Phrases like these are common in various Southern/rural dialects spoken by more “American whites” than “American blacks.”

Hell, they’re common amongst a lot of urban whites. I lived in Chicago during the years in which our mayor was a fellow named Richard M. Daley, a man with what you might best describe as a casual sense of grammar. I’m pretty sure he’s never figured out the difference between “was” and “were.”

Also, if you read the complete transcript of Bundy’s remarks, you’ll see that he also referred to blacks as “colored people.” That particular usage isn’t very popular with anyone but white racists.

The content of Bundy’s message, which wouldn’t have been all that controversial if spoken by a black preacher, was deemed hateful partly because he didn’t say it in the proper, coastal elite way.

Well, no, it was “deemed hateful” because he suggested, among other things, that he was some kind of expert on “the Negro” because he once drove past a housing project. He also posited that these Negroes “abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton.” And that they might have been “better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things.”

And then, in a move reminiscent of his magical transformation of “Cliven” to “Clayvon,” Price provides “translations” of Bundy’s remarks into what he thinks would have been more acceptable “newspeak.”

He thus proves conclusively that if Clayvon Bundy had said something different than what he actually said, without the word “Negro” and all those obnoxious references to “picking cotton,” it wouldn’t have been quite as obviously offensive as what he actually said.

Though it still would have been pretty fucking racist.

Here, for example, is one of Bundy’s remarks, untranslated:

Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do?

Here’s Price’s “translation.”

How can one say that the federal government serves African Americans any better than plantation owners under slavery, when at least they had families and the opportunity to work the land under that system.

Really? Regardless of how it’s worded, that’s an odious and ignorant argument. Slavery made stable family life impossible for slaves. For many years, slaves were forbidden to marry, and even after they were allowed to marry, couples were often separated from one another, living and working on different plantations; children could be sold to plantations apart from their parents. Slaveowners raped slave women and girls and enslaved the children born from these rapes.

It’s really kind of hard to have a decent family life when SOMEONE ELSE OWNS YOU AND YOUR SPOUSE AND YOUR CHILDREN. Or, even worse, several different someone elses.

Oh, but these days single black women sometimes raise children on their own. And living in big cities they don’t have the wonderful opportunities to garden that their enslaved ancestors had.

Price later seems to suggest that Bundy may be less racist than white New Yorkers in part because he doesn’t have to deal with black people as much:

In fact, Bundy, who probably has little if any negative interaction with black folks may be more positively inclined toward them than the New Yorker.

Apparently, in Price’s world, white racism is caused by interacting with black people. The more contact white people have with blacks, the more they hate blacks! Who knew? Maybe this whole “desegregation” thing was a horrible mistake!

In the comments, DruidV wins himself some upvotes by declaring that:

Bundy has the guts to say what a lot of critical thinking Americans have been thinking for over 150 years now. Namely: which form of slavery made American blacks happier.

After all, you didn’t see them running around gunning each other down (along with lots of police and innocents) while hopped up on crack or “lean” or whatever illicit drugs, pre Union war of aggression.

Laguna Beach Fogey, meanwhile, declares that “there’s something admirable about Bundy.”

And minor Manosphere celebrity The Fifth Horeseman, with some sadness, writes that

Cliven Bundy is a metaphor for the self-reliant, small government America being displaced by the big government, feminist, obese America.

The end of an era both inspiring and natural, into a sordid, misandric, obese one.

I’m not quite sure how obesity fits into all this, but evidently Mr. Fifth Horseman here hasn’t noticed that Bundy is himself, well, obese.  Hell, his belly is even bigger than mine. He’s not being displaced by obese America. He is obese America. Just like me.

Anyway, all this is yet another reminder that, in the Manosphere, as elsewhere, bigotries (and bigots) flock together.

P.S. After I wrote this post, I discovered that Davis M.J. Aurini, the self-described “author … strategist …  neoreactionary monarchist, and … entrepreneur” who blogs at Stares at the World has offered up a dramatic reading of Price’s “translations” of Bundy’s remarks, along with an impassioned defense of Bundy, whom he declares to be a misunderstood hero and “the best friend that the blacks have right now.”

The convincingness of his argument is undercut slightly by the fact that Mr. Aurini’s “look” is basically “young Anton LaVey,” and that he also seems to be a graduate of the William Shatner School of Overemoting.

Also, it’s interesting to note that the commenters on YouTube who seem to like his video the most are actually pretty straightforward black-people-haters; one of them is the creator of a racist video “warning” about the supposed “health risks” to white women of interracial dating; another praises Birth of a Nation and agrees with the film’s stance that “the klan was justified in trying to stop all of those murderous blacks.”

Anyway, enjoy.

Paula Deen: Role model for MRAs?

So why are so many white dudes so desperate for an excuse to use the n-word? Consider this white dude, who recently posted this bit of, er, wisdom in the Men’s Rights subreddit:

Is this going to become a new slogan for the Men’s Rights movement? It certainly seems to be popular amongst Men’s Rights Redditors, sporting a couple of dozen upvotes and no criticism (at least at the time I wrote this) from other MRAs. (There were a few critical comments from opponents of the Men’s Rights movement, however.)

Bear in mind that the Men’s Rights subreddit is 86% white, which is a good deal whiter than the United States as a whole, and only 1.5% black, which is way less black, according to a recent survey of its members. I’m pretty sure none of the white dudes upvoting this little slogan have obtained the proper n-word privileges. (Note:  The survey in question was spammed with a number of identical responses, BUT the percentages I’m giving are based on the survey data with all the spammed entries removed, thanks to the industrious Angelica Field; see here for details.)

It’s hardly surprising that black men haven’t exactly flocked to the Men’s Rights movement, given the overt racism of a significant number of MRAs and other Manospherians. And even those MRAs who aren’t so obvious about their racism tend to be dismissive of issues that disproportionately affect men of color: MRAs almost never talk about the drug war that has put so many black men behind bars (two thirds of all those in prison for drug offenses are people of color. mostly men), nor have they ever attempted to organize or even offer any real support to campaigns against prison rape (60% of all prisoners are people of color).

This slogan isn’t likely to help the Men’s Rights movement with what the politicians like to call “minority outreach.” It might help reach a different sort of audience, however — an audience already quite fond of the n-word. When I did a Google search for  the phrase “men are the new niggers,” the first result was a discussion on the Vanguard News Network Forum. I won’t link to it, because the Vanguard News Network is a virulently antisemitic, white supremacist website that the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as “gutturally racist.” The site’s motto: “No Jews. Just Right.”

Of course, the notion of describing men as “the new nigger” didn’t originate with white supremacists. It was clearly inspired, in a backwards way, by the John Lennon song “Woman is the Nigger of the World,” a feminist attack on misogynistic hypocrisy. While Lennon wrote the lyrics, the titular phrase originated with Yoko Ono, who deliberately used the racial slur in what was evidently an attempt to shock people into recognizing the ways in which women, like black people, were dispossessed.

It was a bad idea. Even though Ono and Lennon didn’t mean to reinforce racism by using the slur, it’s not a word that they had any cultural right to appropriate for their own purposes; not only that, but Ono’s slogan seems to implicitly define all “niggers” as men and to ignore black women, who don’t need John or Yoko to remind them that many people already see them as “niggers.”  In the end the title ended up undercutting the message of the song. It can’t listen to it; it makes me cringe.

But glancing over the lyrics again, which aside from the title are essentially about the hypocritical messages sent to women by sexist society, one line in particular stands out to me, because it so deftly captures a certain kind of sexism — and even though it was written years before Warren Farrell first started going on about “disposable men,” it also captures pretty well the MRA tendency to view gender relations upside down:

While putting her down, we pretend that she’s above us

Yep, that’s what the Men’s Rights movement does, all day, every day.

And it’s that kind of delusional thinking that leads some of them to conclude not only that they are the “new niggers,” but also that using the n-word is somehow an appropriate thing for their almost all-white movement to do.

Marlene Dietrich oppressing man with her trousers.

Demetri Marchessini is a retired Greek business tycoon, living in London, and has been a major donor to the right-wing, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP). He also has some, let’s say, eccentric views about gay people, black people, women, and trousers, views so, er, eccentric that the folks in UKIP are a little embarrassed to be associated with him. Given that UKIP is filled with bigots in all varieties, that’s quite something.

In an interview last week with Britain’s Channel 4, Marchessini expounded at length on some of his more colorful views. He told interviewer Michael Crick that marital rape was impossible, because “you can’t have rape if you make love on Friday and make love on Sunday, you can’t say Saturday is rape. Once the woman accepts, she accepts.”

He argued that there is no such thing as homosexual love, only lust, because “they go out at nights and they pick up 5, 10, 15 different partners in one night.” Even gays in committed relationships are basically just roommates who still cruise for anonymous sex partners.

And he suggested that black slaves were better off as slaves in America than they would have been living in Africa, because if they survived the passage they lived longer.

But let’s just talk about the trouser thing. Marchessini thinks women should be banned from wearing trousers, because otherwise they just might bring about the end of western civilization.

No, really.

In a 2003 polemic with the innocent-sounding title Women In Trousers, Marchessini decried female trouser-wearing as “hostile behaviour – they are deliberately dressing in a way that is opposite to what men would like.”

In his interview last week, he explained just how hostile an act trouser-wearing really is. Here’s the whole discussion, from the extended transcript of the interview he posted on his website. I’m putting some of the best bits in bold, but, seriously, the whole thing is pure gold. 

Michael Crick: You wrote this book about women wearing trousers. Explain your position there.

Demetri Marchessini: Well this is a very … there are quite a few reasons why women shouldn’t wear trousers. The point of the book, was that photographs of women on the street, they weren’t posed, women walking down the street, and the point of the book is they were all photographed from the rear, because women do not realise what they look like from the rear, they can’t see themselves from the rear. And they don’t realise how terrible they look from the rear. And this was just a series of photographs, of actual photographs of women walking by and a lot of people didn’t like this, because it’s become a political matter.

Michael Crick: So do you think women should be banned from wearing trousers?

Demetri Marchessini: Yes.

Michael Crick: What, by law?

Demetri Marchessini: They used to be, for thousands of years. Did you know that until two or three hundred years ago a woman wearing trousers would be executed? Did you know that?

Michael Crick: Well presumably you’re not advocating returning to that position?

Demetri Marchessini: No, but I am returning to thinking that this is an important matter, something to think about, whereas now they don’t think about it.

Michael Crick: And you think that women are unsuited to certain jobs?

Demetri Marchessini: Wait a minute, let’s just finish this thing.

Michael Crick: Sorry, yeah.

Demetri Marchessini: The first thing is the Bible. If you are a Christian the Bible says anyone who wears the clothes of the opposite sex is an abomination. If you’re a Christian woman you can’t be wearing trousers.

Michael Crick: I would have thought the vast majority of Christians in this country today would say that’s rubbish.

Demetri Marchessini: Well I’m sorry, they’re perfectly free to say the Bible is rubbish, but if you believe in the Bible you can’t wear trousers, it’s up to you to decide. Secondly, for thousands of years after that, it was a crime for both sexes and then eventually when they started wearing trousers, which was after the First War, there were several reasons not to wear trousers. The first is they don’t look as nice as skirts; the second is trousers don’t excite men. Only skirts excite men.

Michael Crick: Why should women dress to excite men?

Demetri Marchessini: Because that’s the only way the world is going to continue. If they don’t, then men are going to stop fucking them, you understand, and may I tell you, with great respect, that the incidence of lovemaking in Western Europe has fallen drastically.

Michael Crick: What, because women wear trousers?

Demetri Marchessini: Well I think that’s one factor. Another factor is because women work. The fact is if men don’t make love to women the Western world is going to disappear.

So Warren Farrell is angry at women for dressing (or undressing) to excite men; Demetri Marchessini is angry at them for not dressing to excite men.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering why women look so terrible from behind, Marchessini helpfully provides a link to another post on his blog which offers this explanation:

[N]ature has shaped women differently from men, and it is women who have curves, and as a result, big bottoms.  Men are more straight up and down.  It is women who are, therefore, invariably photographed for their bottoms.  Furthermore, since women have started wearing trousers, this situation has become worse.  Trousers are made for men’s bodies, not for women’s bodies.  As a result, they highlight big bottoms.  Nevertheless, women go on wearing them.

Evidently, he does not like big butts, and he cannot lie.

Big thanks to the trouser-wearing Titianblue for tipping me off to this important story.