David Pakman (@dpakman) is the kind of Marxist subversive who hates God even more than he hates America. That is to say, he’s a Democrat. The controversial Pakman hosts a weekly radio/TV/podcast affiliated with the Marxist subversive Pacifica Radio network. Last month, Pakman interviewed Mark Potok, a leading official of an infamous anti-American terrorist group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.
(Why should we let the SPLC monopolize this cheap tactic of smearing political opponents by slapping pejorative “hate” labels on them?)
The subject of this interview was Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), a featured topic in the Spring 2012 issue of the SPLC’s magazineIntelligence Report. With a listing of Internet locations that included everything from pickup artist (PUA) sites to Reddit forums, the article suggested MRAs were a serious danger:
It’s not much of a surprise that significant numbers of men in Western societies feel threatened by dramatic changes in their roles and that of the family in recent decades. Similar backlashes, after all, came in response to the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and other major societal revolutions. What is something of a shock is the verbal and physical violence of that reaction.
Really? The fact that the SPLC’s scaremongering coincided with the Obama re-election campaign’s “Republican War on Women” attack against Mitt Romney was a major clue to their political agenda. Yet few seem to recognize the connection between the Democrat Party’s electoral strategy and the recent resurgence of radical feminism. Because there is no reason to believe that “male supremacy” has become more oppressive in the past decade, we must suppose there must be some other motive for this renewed radicalism. When you realize that (a) Obama won re-election in 2012 with the widest “gender gap” ever recorded by Gallup, and (b) Hillary Clinton is the likely Democrat Party nominee for president in 2016, you must perceive the effort to gain a partisan advantage for Democrats as the most likely cause of this otherwise inexplicable surge of feminist activism. It’s not a conspiracy, just divide-and-conquer identity politics as usual for Democrats.
So when David Pakman interviewed the SPLC’s Mark Potok about the Men’s Rights movement, Potok confessed:
Well, to be honest, I was fairly oblivious to this whole world until we got a tip about a couple of websites that we began to look at. And it very quickly became apparent that there was a whole world of these websites; uh, as I say, the so-called man-o-sphere. Uh, these were websites that purported to be part of the Men’s Rights or Father’s Rights movement, which has some legitimate beefs, I think. But when you went in and started to look at what was actually on the sites, it was just an incredible amount of misogyny, an incredible amount of defamation of women. Uh, you know, one of the themes that runs through all of those websites, or certainly the vast majority of them, is the idea that women routinely lie about rape: that they claim they were raped in order to destroy men, to get advantages over men, and so on.
Hey, the SPLC just “got a tip” and suddenly discovered “an incredible amount of misogyny” on the Internet, which they never noticed, say, in 2008, when liberals were calling Sarah Palin the vilest things imaginable?
The dishonest hypocrisy of the SPLC is exceeded only by the dishonesty of their patented “links-and-ties” method of creating the artificial appearance of connections between persons and organizations which are not actually connected. For example, what is the connection between the 2011 suicide of James Ball (the lead “atrocity” cited in the SPLC article) and a PUA forum like Roosh V (featured in the SPLC’s listing of “manosphere” sites)? The answer: None whatsoever. And yet in order to create the appearance of large, scary, violent “War on Women” movement, the SPLC implied that there was such a connection.
Manufacturing non-existent dangers is an SPLC specialty, and Potok did not disappoint Pakman’s audience in this regard:
Uh, but let me say, first of all, that the real violence directed against women began, in a sense, in 1989, at an engineering school in Montreal, where a particular guy, Marc Lepine, murdered, if I remember, sixteen women: lined them up in a classroom and murdered them because they were engineers, they were the first engineering class at that University that had accepted women. And Lepine wrote explicity about how feminists have destroyed my life, and now I’m going to destroy their lives. Since then, we’ve seen a series of massacres, mass murders, directed at women.
The latest, of course, was last May in Santa Barbara, California, when a young guy named Elliot Rodger went on a rampage and murdered six people before killing himself. And this was all because, as he said, he was still a virgin at 22, he felt that beautiful blonde women owed him sex, and so on, and so on, and so on; he left a manifesto, a video manifesto.
So, what I’m saying is, yes, there has been this underlying, really, rage-filled reaction towards women for a good thirty years or so, now.
Yes, the underlying rage-filled reaction that connects a 1989 event in Canada with a 2014 event in California is part of “a series of massacres, mass murders, directed at women” — except that Potok can’t even name a single example of this “series” that supposedly connects these two events, 25 years apart. If Elliot Rodger was a “copycat killer” inspired by Marc Lepine, he was the only such imitator. Yet, despite what Potok implies, there is zero evidence that Elliot Rodger ever heard of Marc Lepine. Here, go do a word-search on Elliot Rodger’s 141-page manifesto. Marc Lepine isn’t mentioned. Guess what else isn’t mentioned? Feminism.
The words “feminist” and “feminism” appear nowhere in Elliot Rodger’s manifesto because his massacre had nothing to do with feminism. Rodger’s rage wasn’t political, it was personal. The loser couldn’t get laid, and this was his revenge. As for the feminist claim that Rodger was influenced by “men’s rights,” I explained on my blog in May 2014:
The focus on “pickup artist” (PUA) culture as an influence on Rodger is probably misguided. As his manifesto makes clear, the Creepy Little Weirdo had been overwhelmed by resentment and a sense of failure since he was in middle school, and he didn’t start ranting on PUA forums until after he had already decided on his “Day of Retribution.” So he acquired from PUA culture a jargon (“Alpha males,” etc.) but this was not the source of his anger, nor did it exercise a determining influence on his actions.
The image of Elliot Rodger created by media myth-makers was a feminist fabrication. Crazy is not a political philosophy.
Hyping hate in order to exploit fear is the SPLC’s raison d’être, but it’s not as if feminists need more reason to hate and fear men.