So when I was poking around on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog the other day I ran across a guest post from someone calling himself Samseau accusing feminists of using racism to exploit men – that is, of expertly manipulating men of different races to fight one another instead of standing firm against the evil feminists and their evil agenda.
The post, while purporting to be somehow “above” the issue of race, is a muddled mess full of “white men have it worst” nonsense like this:
[R]acial infighting between American men wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the political consequences.
Women, if you haven’t noticed, do not fight with each other over racial conflicts. They might get angry over the past, but they are able to resolve all issues by agreeing on a scapegoat: the white man. Colored women will gladly forgive their white sisters, since, after all, it was the white man who oppressed women and minorities.
White men are the big, bad, evil masters, and as such, all females of different colors can agree to put aside their differences in order to bring the white man down.
Yes, he did indeed use the term “colored women.” Oh, but there’s more.
The election results show that decades of brainwashing young American boys has been an unqualified success. Rather than have boys be loyal to their gender, boys have instead been trained to be loyal to their race.
Little non-white boys at the tender age of 9 years are fed lies about how white male oppressors created their poor living conditions, while white boys are taught that they need to correct the injustices of their forefathers lest they be guilty with the indelible sin of white privilege. Female teachers use the appropriate shaming tactics on these young minds to imprint the intended desire for conflict.
All according to plan.
And more:
Men are pawns in the race game. Thus while American women feed themselves government largesse, jobs, university degrees, their husband’s money, and child support money, American men fight each other over table scraps.
But my favorite thing about this article is the little graph that Mr. Samseau made up to illustrate the REAL issues men face today.
Yep. Race is the least important issue, while “getting laid” is number one.
It’s a pretty revealing little chart, huh?
The comment section for the article – wade into this swamp at your own peril – is (predictably enough) filled with angry racists trying to explain why race really does matter. Others, meanwhile, seem upset that all this racism is getting in the way of the regular woman-bashing. Still others suggest that men of all races needed to understand the “root cause” of all our “multicultural problems.” That being … teh Jews.
My favorite comment of the bunch, though, has to be this, from Caliente, combining an astounding ignorance of history with some half-digested evo psych:
Btw the reason why there are practically no racist women is simple.
Males of mammals are territorial.
They naturally base they identity from bottom up: family,tribe,nation,race.And naturally react negative to males of different “tribe”.
Females at the same time are receptive to have sex with any males as long as they are alpha enough.
In 19 century whites fucked all the black women because they were alpha and they had recourses,just look at Brasil.Nowadays a feminist will be cheating on her white beta herbling with some black fitness coach because that is how her brain assumes alphaness.
Wow.
Glad we got that all settled!
@titianblue
No, as I pulled out stuff I heard from feminists here and there from my ass in the only purpose of advocating for the constitution of an totally open non-victim group constituted from persons of all sexes and races who don’t want to be putted by other persons in a victim group, I don’t need citations.
I’m not sure if we can say “I’ve pulled this from my ass” in English, I translated from French “je sors ça de mon cul”. That’s supposed to be a funny thing to say.
Brz: No, as I pulled out stuff I heard from feminists here and there from my ass in the only purpose of advocating for the constitution of an totally open non-victim group constituted from persons of all sexes and races who don’t want to be putted by other persons in a victim group, I don’t need citations.
In simpler language: “I made it up, but you should believe me“.
Or a conte de fée
If you want us to actually accept this little fable of yours… you do need citations, since assdata is shit.
Putted? Most people don’t want to be putted, since we’re not golf balls.
http://www.amazon.com/Grassroots-Three-Putting-Green-Feet/dp/B001B6CH0S
Brz: D00d, I love men.
To be more specific, I love men that don’t feel the need to lump all women or feminists into one collective category of assumptions. I love men that bother getting to know me and are willing to look past the sum of my parts to see that I am a breathing, thinking, feeling human being that owns my own body and has a right to socialize with whomever I desire. I love men that are able to let their guard down enough to allow me to do the same for them.
Thank sweet Jesus that I don’t categorize all men as misogynists. If I was unable to see men as people (or anyone, for that matter), it would make me very, very lonely, depressed and angry. I personally don’t have the energy for that.
P.S. There is in fact a slight language error; in English, “to pull from one’s ass” implies that the source is “shit” (or “merde”), i.e., not readily believeable or credible. Hence the request for citations.
What language error? I’d say that the implication is entirely accurate, even if unintentional.
Dagrabbit’s gonna need a trophy cabinet for all the internets she’s winning! 🙂
Well, if he meant what was implied, then the error was that it was supposed to be funny. =P
You seem to have some issues with logical thinking pecunium.
As I am very kind and with a pedagogical purpose, I will reformulate the thing :
I don’t try to make you believe that what I’ve heard from feminists is true, I said that I was shocked by what I had read in the “manosphere” in terms of “men are victims” propaganda, because I had always thought that my beloved man privilege was immunizing me from such tentative of making a victim out of me and that I was less shocked by feminist propaganda because, being not a woman, I’ve never felt concerned about what they say.
Thereby, as my quality of being a white man seems to no longer be a protection from the industry of victim-making, I suggested that now arrives the moment for all the people like me to create their own non-victim group.
My “conte de fées” being true or not have nothing to do about it.
ROFLMAO
priceless
Shorter ass-data troll – “I am far too special and amazing to be a victim, and it’s very important that people know how smug I feel about that!”.
@Dograbbit
I don’t care of who loves men or don’t or which feminist hates men or don’t.
Usually, I find every man-hating speech funny when it doesn’t imply throwing people in gulags. Every hate speech is funny and even more necessary when it doesn’t imply the persecution of certain people, because that’s antisocial and everything that’s antisocial is good for making a society more agreeable to live.
I make use of misogyny speech only in front of women in public because it’s anti-social and upsetting easily outraged people is always funny and necessary because easily outraged people are always the better gulag door-keepers and we should always taunt them for fun and for remembering where the totalitarian motherfuckers are.
Hate speech, refusal of victimhood, live and let live : this should be the program of the non-victim group for the best of mankind future. Amen.
Shorter Brz: “I’m an arsehole and no one likes me”
Cool story bro.
Pro-tip: people do not choose to be victims. Some people pretend to be victims and that is a choice, but most people do not pretend to be victims. It is the person hurting someone else that chooses to hurt. The person on the receiving end is the victim and they don’t choose that.
If, however, you are Brz and want to believe that you are not complicit in institutional structures that victimize others*, then you can ignore the fact that very few people pretend to be victims and decide that everyone is pretending (except white men because, of course, understanding privilege and intersectionality would be too much to ask).
*I have a feeling Brz’s victimizing goes well beyond this, but that is neither here nor there. He still wants see himself as a good person without going to the trouble of being one. Even in this, he is not as special as he seems to want to be.
Yes, as long as I don’t put myself in a “victim group,” I’ll be fine.
Individual solutions to systemic problems for the win!!
I have problems with logical thinking?
You base this on?
My not agreeing with the apparent thrust of your gibberish? If you’d like to try putting it into French, I’d be glad to see if it makes any more sense in what I take to be your native language, but… My “conte de fées” being true or not have nothing to do about it. gives me some pause.
Because if you really think the truth, or falsity, of your positin is irrelevant, the logical difficulties probably don’t lie with me.
And in the follow up: I make use of misogyny speech only in front of women in public because it’s anti-social because you think, everything that’s antisocial is good for making a society more agreeable to live.
Again, the logical failings don’t seem to be with me, after all you think something which is anti-social improves the social milieu: Anti-x = Pro-x. Up is down, freedom is slavery, love is hate is what that is.
You might want to irrigate your cul that shit stinks.
@howardbann1ster
Yes. I myself will just choose to be a clueless, privilege-denying upper middle class white, straight, cis-man and all will be well. I suppose, while I am choosing things, I should also get rid of my physical disability. I’d hate to choose to be victimized by ableism.
Brz: The only thing I got from your diatribe is that you purposely do things that are antisocial, which actually explains a lot.
“because that’s antisocial and everything that’s antisocial is good for making a society more agreeable to live…”
^ You poor, confused soul. “Anti-social behaviour is behaviour that lacks consideration for others and may cause damage to the society, whether intentionally or through negligence. This is opposed to pro-social behaviour, which is behaviour that helps or benefits the society.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
Stay tuned for backpedaling in 3… 2…1…
So… people who don’t like misogynists are totalitarians, apparently.
Good to know, I guess.
Now THAT I believe.
Pierre goes to France, encounters Brz. Oh, poor Pierre, we can’t do that to him can we?
Oof, I’m way behind on Pierre. I should work on that.
You are so edgy. No comdeian, no anti-PC zealot, no garden variety French asshole, has ever claimed to do this to get a rise out of people. Truly, you are a special snowflake. The specialest, most snowflaky EVER. And a deep thinker.
P.S.–The Totalitarian Motherfuckers is my new band.
Yeah really, katz, you’re letting us down. 😉