Rodger left behind a manifesto. It details the thoughts of a young man who was filled with hate and rage because he wasn't in a relationship; there is also much evidence of extreme narcissism..
I was interested in how those on the left might see such a crime and found a piece by the feminist Jessica Valenti at The Guardian. She highlights the fact that Rodger was a misogynist - which he most certainly was. But she then tries to tie this into a left-liberal world view in which all evil is supposed to flow from white males as a privileged oppressor class.
As far as the race angle goes, she writes:
Yet, as the artist Molly Crabapple pointed out on Twitter: "White terrorism is always blamed on guns, mental health – never poisonous ideology."
She is arguing that Rodger carried out an act of "white terrorism" inspired by a "poisonous ideology".
Now, that's an odd claim as it's more accurate to put things the other way round. Rodger was of mixed race, with a white father and an Asian mother. And he made clear his hatred of blonde women ("I will slaughter every single blonde s*** I see"). So the truth is that a mixed race man set out to attack white women - how can this be described as an act of "white terrorism"?
And then there's the gender angle. Valenti writes:
The truth is that there is no such thing as a lone misogynist – they are created by our culture, and by communities that tells them that their hatred is both commonplace and justified.
It's that feminist idea that the average man hates women and that the culture supports them in this. As it happens, Rodger in his manifesto is perplexed that the other men he befriends, who also haven't been able to form relationships, aren't angry and hateful like he is but choose instead to pursue their strengths. The reality is that he did, indeed, end up as a lone misogynist.
One of the patterns of these types of crimes is that they tend to be committed not (as the leftist theory might expect) by masculine and traditional white males, but instead by socially maladjusted, loner young men, who feel themselves to be outsiders to a system they feel alienated from.
Anti-white attitudes in action.ReplyDelete
Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everyone???
“Diversity” means chasing down white jobs.
“Diversity” means chasing down white schools.
“Diversity” means chasing down white neighborhoods.
“Diversity” means chasing down Every. Last. White Person.
“Diversity” means White Genocide.
To be honest, as a 14-17 year old in the early to mid 1980’s i was a sharpie, in the Sandy [Sandringham] Boys.Delete
We ran Melbourne CBD and certain suburbs, with the old West Side then merged eventually collapsed into East Side Sharps. other gangs like the Leb Tigers or Oakleigh W@gs too. None of them were politically correct and there was a fair bit of racial abuse and also villification if we felt like it but nobody much worried. No brigades around to stop us!
You had various ‘gangs’, and like the glorious Rose Tattoo song ‘the butcher and fast eddy’, we ALL never fought with anything other than our fists and even some were Marxists but that didnt stop them. I think Professor David Flint was there - not sure what gang but it may have been the Richmond Mob.
We were ‘bogans’, faberge skin tight jeans, moccasins, mohaire jumpers etc.
If Tony Abbott for example ever crossed our path…..well go figure.
He is an inner city gin drinking looper who associates with the arty mob, the chattering class elites who are 8-10% of the electorate. or less, so, please, as a proud ‘ex bogan’, do not denigrate that word by linking to this flog.
i appreciate you trying to slag him off and i applaud you, but it’s just not a word or term that describes that flog who is full of hate - like Abbott, or Bolt or other ex uni wankers who couldnt hold a fight with even say Professor D Flint or Craig Thompson or Liesel Jones or anyone credible.
Feminists want to make this story all about them, but it isn't about them.ReplyDelete
The left never lets a crisis go to waste and applies politics to a tragedy. The truth is that Elliot Rodger killed 5 men (including himself) and 2 women. How is that evidence of "misogyny"? How is killing men supposedly "woman hatred"? Isn't that contradictory? He felt jealous of sexually active men and assorted all sorts of blame for why he was lonely and not in a relationship.
In addition, he was born in the UK to a white Jewish father and an Asian mother before they divorced when he was 7. He came from a broken home, despite the affluence given by his small-scale Hollywood father. His stepmother was some North African Arab Caucasoid woman residing in France. He's not a "white supremacist" and expressed jealously that Indian men and Asian could get blonde white girls but he couldn't.
He frequented an ANTI-PUA (Pick-Up Artist) website, and disliked them. How is that evidence of manospherian affiliations? It isn't. He was under mental health therapy, and had mental health issues too. In his final video called "Retribution" he wondered why women preferred obnoxious thugs over supreme gentlemen such as himself.
He was definitely narcissistic, but the "misogyny" label is way off and nothing more than a dubious political agenda.
This lunatic killed twice as many males as females. I find myself wondering how high that ratio needs to be before it doesn't constitute misogyny.Delete
Actually, if you watch this youtube video about it, he doesn't actually portray narcissistic traits.Delete
I think feminists are trying to link his actions to the manosphere in the hopes that the government, in a knee-jerk reaction, outlaws manosphere websites and shuts them down.
No way that was going to happen, though, because Elliot Rodger was anti-manosphere. If anythings the government should hunt down other anti-PUA people too...
Valenti: Non-white kills whites. Whites to blame.ReplyDelete
That was the killer's take on it, too.
"He was under mental health therapy"ReplyDelete
I can't help wondering if he was taking antidepressants. And whether his violence was a direct result of taking such medication.
Good post Mark and good first comment by Alcestis.ReplyDelete
I've known many half asian men just like Rodgers in my life. I'm actually in all honesty disturbed by it now after this event.
I wonder if Valenti googled the man. A quick search would have shown that he has obviously Asian, diminutive physical features.ReplyDelete
You concluded, "Rodger in his manifesto is perplexed that the other men he befriends, who also haven't been able to form relationships, aren't angry and hateful like he is but choose instead to pursue their strengths. The reality is that he did, indeed, end up as a lone misogynist.
One of the patterns of these types of crimes is that they tend to be committed not (as the leftist theory might expect) by masculine and traditional white males, but instead by socially maladjusted, loner young men, who feel themselves to be outsiders to a system they feel alienated from."
But as Alcesti points out, he wasn't a misogynist. From a quick skim of his manifesto, it seems to me he consistently blames not women, but his physical differences for his misfortune. And his physical differences are a.) not his fault, b.) very real and c.) categorical (i.e. racial).
In your conclusion, you imply that he simply should have "focused on his strengths" and somehow been happy without a relationship as that just isn't in the cards for him. Had you had the chance to give him this answer before he went on a rampage, I don't think it would have changed much.
Had I had the chance to speak with him before he committed this atrocity, my answer would have been a bit different: I would have pointed out to him that since his physical differences with the people in his community are bothering him so much to the point that he is willing to end these people's very existence, maybe he should consider instead changing his community. Many "Chinese-Americans" end up returning to China. He might consider immersing himself in the language and culture of people who look like him and whose women are more likely to respond favorably to his advances. And then move there. That answer would at least have offered him another strategy to get what he obviously desperately wanted, rather than simply telling him to give it up and focus his energies elsewhere. And it would have underscored the importance of race--something traditionalists are usually keen to do.
Instead of highlighting his pain as evidence of the consequence of racial differences, you chose to downplay his pain as evidence of a loser/whiner personality. This isn't very charitable, and it doesn't even advance your overall agenda of demonstrating the importance of (so that you can defend the existence of) racial differences. Why did you do this?
Bartholomew, I wasn't suggesting that a man should happily accept celibacy. I was pointing out that Rodger was not able to act in concert with other similarly placed men, as these men did not turn to the kind of hatred that Rodger did.Delete
I disagree with you about Rodger's misogyny. I read a fair chunk of the manifesto and he openly expresses a hatred of women (and of couples, and of blonde people), to the point that he began to enact small acts of violence, such as throwing drinks at women.
I don't so much regard Rodger as a loser/whiner personality, but as someone who:
a) was not in his right mind
b) was very far gone in terms of the worst influences of modern society
If he had been in his right mind he would have tried to mate assortatively; as you point out, a good strategy would have been for him to have found affinity and loyalty with those he more closely resembled.