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!
Translation of brz:
I will translate hibbity hoo words hibbity hoo Marcela Iacub, you might find sohibbity hoo intellectual material to put yourself in question a little bit :
“[To hibbity hoo eyes hibbity hoo hibbity hoo feminists] this old punishing machine is hibbity hoo royal way to inverse hibbity hoo relations hibbity hoo force in hibbity hoo society. hibbity hoo’s how we rely hibbity hoo punishhibbity hoonts hibbity hoo ones with hibbity hoo emancipation hibbity hoo ohibbity hoors, hibbity hoo hibbity hoo prison becohibbity hoo hibbity hoo center hibbity hoo all hibbity hoo political utopias hibbity hoo this movehibbity hoont and hibbity hoo we confound hibbity hoo emancipation hibbity hoo wohibbity hoon with hibbity hoo police function, or instead hibbity hoo we create a police hibbity hooory hibbity hoo hibbity hoo emancipation hibbity hoo wohibbity hoon”.
If it’s not Pell, we could set them up on a blind date. Is the coffee shop with the scrummy pains au chocolat still there on the Square?
I’m an other kind of troll guys, the troll who try to improve his English while trying to have an intellectual discussion with paranoid feminists on a blog. That went good but, at my own taste, you didn’t quoted my mistakes enough. You sure can make some use of more chauvinism.
The thing about the Battle of Algiers which I liked (in an, “I respect the way it was handled”) is how they made the banality of evil palpable. The colonel (a composite) knows what he is doing is both morally questionable (at the very least), if not bankrupt. He tells the gov’t that if they want to stay in Algeria they can, but they, “have to accept all the consequences”.
When they say stay, he goes out and does things he knows are evil. Because that’s what he said he would. It broke the French Army. It changed the world (Algeria is why the rest of the insurgent groups of the world decided terror was the way to win: though it was lost on them that it was the terror the French imposed which made the terror the FLN used both possible, and productive).
If there is a lesson in the movie it’s that, “It can happen here, and I might take part.”
RE: Brz
the troll who try… to have an intellectual discussion with paranoid feminists on a blog.
That is a contradiction in terms.
Notice how Le Socque is slipping in and out of standard English and Pathetic Pretend ESL?
RE: pecunium
Hmm. That movie sounds good, but war movies are really not my thing. Still, I am now tempted. The banality of evil is something I find really interesting, because I tire of the big dramatic puppy-stomping evil. I sincerely doubt most people go that way.
How about French movies? I liked Ascenseur pour l’Echafaud and Bob le Flambeur.
Kitteh: I mark it with interest
Brz, having an “intellectual discussion” with people requires some level of respect for them and their opinions. Labeling us paranoid kind of defeats that.
Also how can you have an intellectual discussion with us as feminists when you quite clearly don’t actually know what Feminism is and have never read about it or studied it?
LBT, while it is definitely a war setting, Battle of Algiers is not your standard issue war movie. Give into your temptation!
The Train was a very good war movie – but then it had Paul Schofield in it, hard to go wrong there. 🙂
I’m an other kind of troll guys, the troll who try to improve his English while trying to have an intellectual discussion with paranoid feminists on a blog. That went good but, at my own taste, you didn’t quoted my mistakes enough. You sure can make some use of more chauvinism.
Um…. I think you are the kind of troll who pretends to be from another country, and so can use, “you are so backwards” as his schtick, while attempting to use the supposed infelicity of being a non-native user of the primary language of discourse to excuse the gibbering inanity of his pustulently eructive expostulations.
The problem is, of course, that faking being a non-native speaker is hard. It’s hard enough when one is trying to pretend one is a non-native speaker and engaging in banalities. You aren’t doing that. You are trying to engage in a subject with a significant nomenclature, while using backchat and banter to amuse yourself at how well you are taking the piss.
It means you fuck up. You slip in dead-letter perfect uses of appropriate colloquialism, and then use bastard formulations of error from more than one pattern of english acquisition. You have married it to an inconsistent persona of affected superiority.
It lacks the coherent sincerity to make it stick, esp. because you back off the use of French when you were challenged on it. The verisimilitude suffers when you get all sniffy about how beautiful and perfect French is, and how appalled you are that we would sully it; and then let abuses of her grammar and form be made without reply.
Tu est un poseur.
What I liked about it is the impartiality. It’s so easy to portray the insurgents as the heroes and the occupiers as the villains in this sort of movie, but this one presents the sides equally. For instance, before both the French and the Algerian bombings, it shows shots of the crowds and the children and innocent bystanders who are going to get killed.
“at my own taste, you didn’t quoted my mistakes enough”
Like I said, that’s a boring game. I won’t do that for the same reason I stopped watching Wheel of Fortune. Too damn easy.
LBT: it’s not a war movie. it’s a set piece of morality. The background is this:
Saadi Yaccef was a member of the FLN. He was imprisoned in France. He wrote a book of inspirational propaganda. After Algeria was liberated he went to Italy to get it made into a movie. Some back and forth (the Director wanted to make it a French focused piece, with Newman as the star. The Algerians wanted to make it a bit of a hagiography of the revolution), and some serious compromise was made.
As a result the focus is on algerians, but the central figure is a frenchman. The ambiguity of both sides is played up; even though one comes to the sense the algerians’ complaints were valid. It completely ignores the wider (and more brutal) war in the rest of the country.
“it was the terror the French imposed which made the terror the FLN used both possible, and productive”
No, no one forced the FLN soldiers to kill, torture en masse the harkis and the Algerians in Algeria and in France who didn’t support them. The bigger, by far, amount of deaths was caused by the ALN/FLN war which were two nationalist Algerian groups.
The FLN guys who did these atrocities should be taken as responsible for what they did. Responsibility goes with dignity.
I hope one day a French president will shake the hand of an Algerian president for reconciliation on the name of all the innocents who died in this conflict like Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl did in front of the monument where tones of bones of German and French men who died in WW1 are pilled up.
I think Algerian have enough proud in them to understand the beauty of it.
@Brzt
Je suis une féministe qui ne s’oppose pas au concept de pornographie ou d’autres matières masturbatoires, en principe, mais souhaite qu’ils seraient moins effrayant. Wiele z nich to, niestety, czy mam udawać człowiek jestem bardzo nie (na przykład, quelqu’un qui ne trouve pas les gens transforment i dukke-stuepige-caethweision darfu fel fuck) neu dim ond … WHYYYYY????? (Er enghraifft,Draco Malfoy czterdzieści dwa cale penis, ac mae’r toiled yn seiliedig ar androgyne un).
Jeg forstår ikke, hvordan man kan være en troll avec l’intention foi sincère bonne ponieważ zestaw definicji trolli tutaj. Fra hvad jeg har set det har for det meste været Arglebarge med
gramadeg erchyll a gair archebu. ac nid divertissant. être magis delectabiles.
Je ne suis pas très bon mewn dysgu ieithoedd ond Google Traduki certigas al mi ke ĉi è corretto.
(I am sorry. I am so, so sorry.)
CWS: Love it. Placing bets now on whether he even notices.
They have antibiotics for that these days.
I love the concept of “matière masturbatoire”, I will try to use in a dinner.
“Non je n’aime pas le cinéma de Godard, c’est de la matière masturbatoire. Un truc qui masturbe et qui se masturbe. Horrible vraiment. Il reste encore un peu de tamara?”
Damn… that whoosh was deafening.
As was the silence.
As some of you have tried to challenge my frenchness – a accusation so hurtful that it makes me wanting to go out in the street my French passport in hand to show it to everyone – that, in order to prove myself and because it fits with what I tried to explain to you, I will past-copy the comment that I wrote in the article which I quoted before :
“Antisexisme sexisme a dit:
“Le viol n’est PAS de la sexualité. Ça a été démontré par des étude de psychologie sociale : les agressions sexuelles ne sont pas dues à une excitation sexuelle, mais à une volonté de dominer l’autre.”
Donc pour vous le désir de dominer/être dominé, souffrir/faire souffrir est extérieur à la sexualité : ça a été démontré “scientifiquement”.
Je pense qu’on peut trouver ici la réponse à la question de pourquoi le viol est devenu le crime des crimes et de la théorie policière de l’émancipation des femmes :
si l’on est prêt à accepter que la sexualité est entièrement pure et innocente, que le mal est toujours “à l’extérieur”, alors la lutte contre le vice est simple : il suffit de mettre des flics partout qui empêcheront le vice de venir troubler la pureté originelle des êtres humains, car celle-ci est perpétuellement menacée par la corruption.
Philippe Muray avait écrit sur “l’envie de pénal” comme sexualité de substitution dont le désir obsessionnel est proportionnel à la négation du péché originel.
Une fois que l’on a nié la part de vice inhérente à la sexualité, et que donc on a transformé la sexualité en quelque chose de neutre dont on n’est plus capable de jouir, on trouve dans la pulsion de meurtre envers le non-neutre, le non-harmonieux, la menace de corruption fantasmée, un exutoire aux pulsions sexuelles refoulées.”
http://leplus.nouvelobs.com/contribution/322237-viol-l-emancipation-des-femmes-ne-passe-pas-forcement-par-la-justice.html
If you’re able to understand it, it will like seeing the sun for the first time.
Dude, that part was in Foux du Fafa.
In that, much like the first time you saw the sun, you won’t remember it a few years later. Or even a few minutes later.